For months now, long before the 2016 election, I have been warning about a specific social dynamic which is likely to lead to a form of civil war within the U.S.; namely, the reality that people on the left side of the political spectrum would become despondent at the inevitable loss of their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and that they would react by becoming far more militant. In my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’, published November post-election, I stated:

“When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.

When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism.”

I believed at that time that the social-justice cult would lose mainstream influence but that the existing minority would resort to even more insidious tactics and greater violence to get what they want; and, the so-called “moderate left” would cheer them on. As it turns out, I have been proven right so far.

Not that extreme Leftists have been averse to violence over the past year, but I think it is safe to say that the volume on the cultural Marxist machine has been turned up a notch. The riot at UC Berkeley over a scheduled speech by gay, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos is a perfect example:

Then, there was the raid by SJWs at NYU on a speech by conservative journalist and comedian Gavin McInnes, in which they shouted down all discussion with mindless chants until the event had to be canceled. This was, of course, after they had already physically attacked people outside the building, including McInnes:

The social justice mantra is changing. At first, it was predominately about forming mobs to “shame” target political opponents into silence. Now, it is about forming mobs to do what they call “punching Nazis.” Leftists are now often seen regurgitating the claim — “This is only the beginning…”

I agree, this IS only the beginning. The Left is driven not only by the ideology of cultural Marxism, but also a very specific activist strategy outlined in Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’. The very core of Alinsky’s method revolves around one important rule in particular: the ends justify the means.

This is the key ingredient of moral relativism, and when a movement is motivated by moral relativism, there is no limit to the depths they will sink to get their way. Activists adopting the “ends justify the means” mentality are not interested in being “right,” or wise, or rational or logical or factual; they ONLY care about “winning.” This is their goal, and they will do anything to achieve it.

It is important to note, however, that all of these protests and the increase in violence is not taking place in a vacuum. As many liberty analysts have noted, Trump has hardly had time to do anything yet that would warrant national protests. Is Trump really the only catalyst? Not quite. The mainstream media and globalists like George Soros have been very effective in agitating or outright paying protesters and provocateurs to generate zombie mobs of gullible Leftists to use as a billy club for harassing conservatives.

That said, I want liberty activists and analysts to ponder on this for a moment — to what end is this being done? Why is Soros so interested in fomenting leftist rage? Is it designed to overthrow Trump? To initiate mob action and frighten conservatives into silence? Or do the globalists have a greater and more important goal in mind?

I have been writing often on the idea of 4th Generation Warfare the past month, and I think my readers are now well versed in the concept of the “three-steps-ahead” style of tactics, as well as the concept of manipulating an opponent to destroy himself, rather than fighting him directly. These are not new methods, the globalists have merely taken them to the next level.

But how do 4th Gen warfare tactics apply to the current Right vs. Left scenario in the U.S.? Well, everything is not as obvious as it seems.

There is a point I have been trying to make for most of the year that I think has been consistently missed by many in the liberty movement. That point being that the greatest danger to conservatives is NOT militant Leftists, but how we RESPOND to militant Leftists. That is to say, I believe the globalists are using the Left as a cattle prod to enrage conservatives and lure us into abandoning our principles in the name of defeating Marxists.

Consider this; the argument among most liberty analysts has been that the numerous anti-Constitutional programs put in place by the Obama administration in the past eights years would eventually be used by the political Left and the globalists as weapons to subdue and destroy conservatives and patriot groups. While Obama certainly tested the waters of tyranny over and over again, up to and including using executive orders to assassinate American citizens without trial, it is clear that those extensive powers afforded to the White House are no longer in the hands of the left; they are in the hands of Trump.

Obama even signed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law AFTER Trump had already won the White House. Trump has now inherited this power as well, which seems to give government the authority to harass or even silence news sources they deem “fake news.” While many liberty activists cried foul and warned of a “coup” designed to shut down alternative news sites and thwart Trump’s inauguration, I warned that there was a much more dangerous scenario in play.

What will conservatives do in the face of the leftist mob funded by globalists and growing ever more vicious? Well, what do the globalists expect us to do? I think they expect us to look at all the government powers we once admonished as unConstitutional and say “hey, maybe these laws and executive orders are not so bad after all…”

I think the globalists are handing us the incredible temptation of far reaching bureaucratic power, and they expect us to abuse that power, as almost anyone would.

As an alternative analyst I am privy to trends in the liberty movement and in conservative circles that might not be immediately obvious to casual readers. Already, I am witnessing calls among conservatives to abuse government power to defeat the Left. I have seen comments such as:

“Trump should use the NDAA to imprison these leftists indefinitely…”

“The only solution is to throw the leftists into FEMA camps…”

“Trump needs to shut down the leftist media…”

“Sometimes it is okay to bend the rules of the constitution if you have the right president…”

And comments like this are popping up everywhere in liberty media boards. Now, I recognize that some of this talk is being posted by paid disinformation agents and provocateurs, but, I have heard regular conservatives and patriots, people who are long time proponents of the Constitution, echo similar sentiments.

I often use the analogy of the “One Ring” from The Lord Of The Rings to describe big government power. I really can’t find a better fictional symbol. Anyone who comes into possession of the “one ring” is eventually corrupted by it. Many good people believe that its darker energy can be contained and directed for good purposes, but they, too, are ultimately undone by it. The only answer, the only solution, is to abandon the ring, or to destroy it.

Overt government power is very much the same; it corrupts any person or group that comes in contact with it. Every group thinks that if only THEY were in possession of government that they would do things differently. This is a delusion. No person or group is benevolent enough to handle this responsibility, and this includes conservatives. Many groups would commit egregious and heinous crimes to take government for themselves, or keep it for themselves, all the while so many Saurons (globalists) laugh and smack their lips as the masses battle over numerous rings of power.

As I have noted time and time again for the past several months, Trump is the perfect tool for scapegoating conservative movements for the economic crisis the elites have already engineered. But, this is only one part of the agenda. In the midst of chaos generated by financial calamity, the morals of an entire society can become “malleable”. The most important target of the globalists is not only conservatives, but the conservative philosophy. They don’t just want to annihilate conservatives today, they want to annihilate conservatives for all time.

The globalists cannot accomplish this task without our help. They NEED us to adopt an attitude of moral relativism, much like the Left. They need us to turn into totalitarians. They need us to become the monster we claim we want to defeat. Only then can conservative principles be demonized for all time. Only then will history look back on us as a stain on the human record.

This is the globalist’s long game.

While Leftists are being encouraged to mutate into wild frothing packs of rabid dogs, conservatives will be encouraged either through temptation or manipulation to respond in kind. The Left’s propaganda train asserts that we are “fascists.” Obviously, we are the furthest thing from this. But, with enough violence and aggressive censorship on their part, we might end up saying “Okay, you want to see fascism, we’ll show you fascism!”

The social justice cult has no idea what they are being led into. The globalists are going to throw them to the wolves, and WE are the wolves.

It is important to note that the Left is also not the only instigator for conservatives to turn totalitarian. Islamic terrorism is always a perfect rationale for increased government intrusion in the name of safety. The worst part is, the threats from the Left and the threats from Islamic extremism are in most cases quite legitimate, and they seem to be working hand-in-hand more each day.

The progressive interference with steps towards more rational immigration policies and their steady defense of Sharia Law leads many conservatives to see them as one in the same enemy. No foreigner is entitled to citizenship in the U.S., but leftists live in a fantasy world of open borders. The left’s refusal to entertain reasonable and selective immigration will eventually push conservatives towards more drastic measures, which is the ultimate point.

Very few Americans like Communists, and very few Americans like Muslim zealotry; the justification for totalitarian measures to disrupt such threats is relatively easy for many people.

This is why I am going to make my next prediction of a major geopolitical event to close out this article — I believe there will be a large scale terrorist attack within the next three months, beyond the mob actions of the Left already in progress.

It will either be similar in scope to 9/11, or, it will be a succession of many smaller attacks occurring over the course of a few days to a couple of weeks. I believe that the current dispute over border controls and immigration denial will come immediately into play. Trump will blame Leftists for obstructing his efforts for secure immigration. Leftists and the media will blame Trump for “radicalizing” Muslims with his immigration policies, or perhaps even accuse him of staging the attacks himself. Trump will begin taking extraordinary measures beyond the Constitution to ensure immigration denial and the thwarting of the Left, and conservatives will applaud him for it.

Again, conservatives are being led by globalists into the temptations of power. The only way for us to fight back is to maintain our principles and refuse to support ANY government measure that is unConstitutional, even if it is to be used against our enemies. The only way that the heritage of liberty can be defeated is if the proponents and champions of liberty forsake it. We beat the globalists in the long run by standing by our ideals and fighting back within the bounds of the principles we hold dear. Dominance through government is never the answer.

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.

capable of understanding the principals AMERICA was founded on and willing to join hands in a national resistance to CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Men and women who love their freedom more than their bondage who will circulate copies of the Constitution with the stipulation of a promise to read it and demand a Constitutional Government not under the control of the International Investment banking cartel. A second civil war will be the total end of freedom in this country. And that’s where this country is headed!

The purpose of this page is to empower the County Sheriff and U.S. Marshal through knowledge of the Supreme Law of the Land and history; in order that they may serve the People and save/preserve America. There is no elected or appointed official that can remove the Sheriff or Marshal from office. The Sheriff is elected by the People of their county and the Marshal is appointed by the President who was vested with that power by We the People through the United States Constitution. In the case Marbury v Madison in 1803 the Court made it clear that the Constitution gave the power to the president to appoint but not the power to remove, that is reserved to the People alone through indictment for bad behavior.

There are only two Law Enforcement officers in America; The County Sheriff and the US Marshal. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcer whose duty it is to protect the unalienable rights of the People both in the court room and within the county. While the U.S. Marshal is responsible for protecting the unalienable rights of the People in the Federal Court room.

The Sheriff is the only person able to call for the posse comitatus (Latin, Power of the county) Referred at Common Law to all males over the age of fifteen on whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder. Today, under a national emergency the Sheriff is both the first and last line of defense should our government go rouge; since congress has been derelict of duty in the providing for the militia.

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16: “The Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

The Bill of Rights makes clear two (2) things (1) A well regulated militia is an unalienable right and (2) a well regulated militia is necessary to our security.

Amendment II “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Today all seats of government have unlawfully incorporated and therefore all police forces (city, town, village, state, etc.) work for corporations and owe their allegiance to the corporation, therein “code enforcement officers”; whereas Sheriffs and Marshals are “constitutional officers” owing allegiance to the People. There exists no Constitutional authority for police forces.

U.S. Constitution Article VI clause 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are founded under common law, a/k/a the Supreme Law of the Land. ALL CASES AT LAW: Black’s Law 4th, “within constitutional guaranty of jury trial, refers to common law actions as distinguished from causes in equity and certain other proceedings.” Breimhorst v. Beck-man, 227 Minn. 409, 35 N.W.2d 719, 734.

The Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal just like We the People have lost their way. We have forgotten who we are and by what authority we act upon and therefore our servants rule over us. The purpose of this site is to help us find our way back to the Liberties our founding fathers discovered and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish for themselves and their posterity. It is now our turn, our duty, to re-discover our roots for ourselves and our posterity. There are forces within our government that are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. These people are called progressives and over the years they have taken control of both major parties and thereby methodically removed civics, God and constitutional studies from our education and through the media, entertainment and education have demoralized us.

What We the People and our Sheriffs need to know is that:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

When we the People ordained Common Law, U.S. Constitution Article VI, the Supreme Law of the Land We the People took control of all decision making within the courts through Grand and Trial Juries and the Common Law Sheriff became the only Law Enforcer of the court and the county. The common law court is well established and defined in history, Blacks Law and Bouviers Law.

“The Sheriff is the “Chief Executive and Administrative Officer” of a county chosen by popular election. His principal duties are in aid of the criminal and civil courts of record [common law courts]; such as serving process, summoning juries, executing judgments, holding judicial sales and the like. He is also the chief conservator of the peace within his territorial jurisdiction.” Harston v. Langston, Tex.Civ. App., 292 S.W. 648, 650.

The word “Sheriff” is a contraction of the term “shire reeve”, meaning a royal official responsible for keeping the peace throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king(s). We the People “Ordained” the Constitution for the United States of America which puts the People as the said kings above the Constitution and our elected servants under the Constitution, therein the great American experiment. Our servants have no more power than that which We the People gave them and any law they write to the contrary is null and void as if it has never been passed; as we read:

SHERIFFS TERM OF OFFICE ANDREMOVAL FROM OFFICE

State Constitutions require the election of the Sheriff for a two or four year term. His full authority is defined in common law history and cannot be altered. The Sheriff can only be removed from power at the ballot box or by the People for bad behaviour through indictment. Not upholding his oath would be bad behavior.

SHERIFF AND THE JURY

Although many states write statutes on how the state, usually through the prosecutor, calls the Grand Jury; such statutes have no control over the Sheriff or the People. History recalls that the Sheriff is usually the one who calls for the Grand Jury after or before he makes an arrest and the state calls for the Grand Jury if the state wants to accuse someone of a crime.

In all cases it is the People through the Grand Jury who will decide if a crime was committed or not by indictment. The administration for the Grand Jury also known as the investigative body for the Grand Jury is made up of four People who are “not” elected or appointed but rise out from among the People. We find this process has been established since at least 1215AD and is described in the Magna Carta. Most states have statutory Commissioner of Jurors that are political appointments and therefore are an abomination to common law.

THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE

In the 1992 court case United States v Williams Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.

We the people have been providentially provided legal recourse to address the criminal conduct of persons themselves entrusted to dispense justice. In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992), whereas the Court said: “Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists, “[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1544, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), “the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ” ‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). “In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S.Ct. 370, 373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct. 613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).

“The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.'” United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. —-, —- , 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643, 70 S.Ct. 357, 364, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950)). “It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating.“ Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468, 471, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919). “The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation,” see Hale, supra, 201 U.S., at 59-60, 65, 26 S.Ct., at 373, 375, “nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge.” See Calandra, supra, 414 U.S., at 343, 94 S.Ct., at 617. “It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy,” see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S., at 424-425, 103 S.Ct., at 3138. “we have insisted that the grand jury remain “free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18, 93 S.Ct. 764, 773, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973). “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s “constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge ‘. . . .“ Id., at 16, 93 S.Ct., at 773 (emphasis added) (quoting Stirone, supra, 361 U.S., at 218, 80 S.Ct., at 273).

“Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all, including some more appealing than the one presented today. In Calandra v. United States, supra, a grand jury witness faced questions that were allegedly based upon physical evidence the Government had obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment; we rejected the proposal that the exclusionary rule be extended to grand jury proceedings, because of “the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury.” 414 U.S., at 349, 94 S.Ct., at 620. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), “we declined to enforce the hearsay rule in grand jury proceedings, since that “would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their inquiries unfettered by technical rules.” Id., at 364, 76 S.Ct., at 409.

JUDGES AND PROSECUTORSACT ABOVE THE LAW

A common complaint from Sheriffs is, “I cannot arrest a judge without first getting the prosecutor to agree otherwise the prosecutor may refuse to prosecute.” The question that begs answering is where did the prosecutor get such power? Certainly We the People did not give it to them in the Constitution and certainly congress can make no Law that we did not give them the power to make. We the People did not ordain the prosecutor “Chief Law Enforcer”, but the Sheriff! Solution: if the prosecutor refuses to prosecute they should be arrested for “felony rescue”.

The Sheriff is not to go begging the prosecutor for an indictment, he shouldn’t even be going to the prosecutor at all, but to the Grand Jury directly and ask them for an indictment. The problem is that the Judge and the prosecutor deny Sheriffs and the People access to the Grand Jury. After six years of practicing law without a BAR degree we found out that many judges and prosecutors have something to hide so they protect each other by blocking access to the Grand Jury, they fear what you may ask of the Grand Jury.

So, if the Sheriff needs to ask permission, he’s not the Chief and he passes his duties to others, and any Sheriff that does that is in “Bad Behavior”. If the Sheriff cannot get access to the Jury Administrators (a/k/a Commissioners of Jurors) directly he has the power and authority to summons 25 People, out of any pool (phone book, etc.) to the courthouse jury room and ask for an indictment.

We the People did not give prosecutors power to negotiate deals with People under indictment. Prosecutors may propose the deal to the Grand Jury for decision; but the arrangement must offer a plan for restitution acceptable to the injured party or due process, trial by jury, must run its course.

GUN CONTROL

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming have no law requiring pistol owners to have a permit to carry. Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia, according to the NRA are considering bills in current legislative sessions to end permit requirements. The United States Supreme Court quoting the rules of criminal and civil procedure said: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197

The Bill of Rights Amendment II states “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This Amendment protects two unalienable rights, both of which articulate the right of self-defense, one personal, the right to protect your-self from another individual shall not be infringed and the other to protect our-self from a rouge government, shall not be infringed. Some may say the right to keep and bear Arms is for the militia; this makes no sense because We the People are the militia, nor are We the People willing to give up an unalienable right.

Conclusion: if the Sheriff does not protect the right of the People to keep and bear arms he is in violation of his oath and thereby in bad behavior and subject to removal from office by the People through indictment. The real test of the Sheriffs Constitutional fortitude in states that require permits is; is he going to protect the People from rogue statutes and bureaucrats or compromise the Law?

ARREST OR SEIZURE WARRANTS

All arrest or seizure warrants must have a wet ink signature of a Federal or State Judge (not city, town or village) supported by an affidavit.

Bill of Rights Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sheriffs must refuse warrant execution without signatures and affidavits, to proceed without would be a vilation of their oath and therefore in bad behavior.

SWAT: Any time any police force including federal agents uses SWAT and raid attacks, usually in the middle of the night, against one of the People because they “allegedly” owe money is an assault upon Liberty and the Sheriff is obligated by oath to stop it and make arrests if necessary.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL

The right to travel canot be licensed“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience “Regulated” here means stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. – licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes.” Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22

Blacks 2nd, “License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.”

RIGHTS

INALIENABLE (Blacks 4th) Not subject to alienation (separation); the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

RIGHT (Blacks 4th) “Rights” are defined generally as “powers of free action.” And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. FREE. Not subject to legal constraint of another. Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in this sense as opposed to “slave.”

Rights are not a crime We the People have right to exercise rights, right to practice law, right to proceed in courts without cost, right to travel, right of privacy, right to be let alone and right to defend just to name a few. In conclusion I have a right to do anything I please as long as I do not injure another or currupt the morals of a minor.

DUE PROCESS

Bill of Rights Amendment V: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The question is what is an Infamous crime: Blacks Law 4th states: “A crime which entails infamy (state of dishonor) upon one who has committed it. Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 25, 24 A. 456, 17 L.R.A. 764. The term “infamous” e., without fame or good report—was applied at common law to certain crimes, upon the conviction of which a person became incompetent to testify as a witness. A crime punishable by imprisonment.”

Conclusion: Anybody that is facing jail time “MUST” be indcited and tried in a Court of Law, a summons or a police report is not sufficient. Additionally there is a common law maxim that states “in order for there to be a crime there must be a sworn affidavit by an injured party and the state cannot be that injured party.”

Any Sheriffs finding that he inherited the housing of prisoners in the County Jail that did not get due process, is housing political prisoners and would be guilty of conspiracy if he did not do the right thing as soon as he awakened and realized it.

Any court that does not necessitate due process, would not be a Court of Law; city courts, town courts and village courts do not necessitate due process but statutes. So, what is the solution? The answer is to petition the Grand Jury in a Federal Court for a Habeas Corpus and the court will demand proof of due process and if they fail to prove due process the Court will order their release. If you cannot find a Common Law Grand Jury in your Federal District we already have jury pools nation-wide in all ninety-four (94) Federal Districts in America and our Administrators can help initiate the paper work and court process.

JURISDICTION

Only Courts of Record, a/k/a Common Law Courts have jurisdiction over the People. All courts of record proceed with a tribunal a/k/a Jury under the rules of Common Law. All city, town, criminal, and village courts are not courts of record because they proceed according to the rules of chancery and not law and therefore have no jurisdiction over the People. If a Judge refuses to answer the accused by what authority they act then they do not have jurisdiction. The only answer is “Common Law”, U.S. Constitution article VI.

Any court that proceeds with summary judgments are not common law courts and have no jurisdiction over the People.

Summary proceeding: Blacks 4th “Any proceeding by which a controversy is settled, case disposed of, or trial conducted, in a prompt and simple manner, without the aid of a jury, without presentment or indictment, or in other respects out of the regular course of the common law. In procedure, proceedings are said to be summary ‘when they are short and simple in comparison with regular proceedings; ie., in comparison with the proceedings which alone would have been applicable, either in the same or analogous cases, if summary proceedings had not been available.” Sweet. See Phillips v. Phillips, 8 N.J.L. 122.

“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law. The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings1 and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.” – 16American Jurisprudence 2d., Sec. 114:

“If there is no sworn affidavit by an injured party there is no crime, there can be no case: No more than an affidavit is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982

“Allegations in an affidavit in support of a motion (action) must be considered as true in absence of counter-affidavit.” Group v Finletter, Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

“The appropriate party to attest to the facts is the plaintiff himself, not the plaintiff’s attorney, an attorney’s affidavit that is not based upon personal knowledge is without value and is insufficient as an affidavit.” Romel v. Reale, 155 A.D.2d 747, 547 N.Y.S.2d 691 (3d Dep’t 1989)

Any court that proceed against the People with statutes and not the law of the land are not common law courts and have no jurisdiction over the People.

“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”– Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” [Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)]

“There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]

“Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

Sheriffs are not to carry out the decisions of courts not of record and have a duty to arrest judges and prosecutors who continue to precede under the color of law to prosecute We the People.

Coroner (usually in murder cases and can perform the duties of a magistrate)

Prosecutor (district attorney or U.S. attorney)

Bailiff (Sheriffs’ or Marshalls’ Deputies) without a Sheriff or a Marshal there can be no common law court because there would be no one to enforce the law (Constitution). The Sheriff and the Marshal has a duty to arrest any elected or appointed court officer if they violate the Peoples unalienable rights and this includes the Magistrate (Judge) and the prosecutor.

LAW v STATUTES

Laws are created by God (common law) and written in the hearts of all men thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal and simply put thou shall do no harm. Statutes are written by men to control society. Lawful statutes that become law are governed by two documents the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Constitutions are written and initiated by the People to give government limited but necessary powers. U.S. legislative power is limited to eighteen (18) powers see U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8, and Quo Warranto from We the People, filed in all 94 Federal District Courts, served upon all State and U.S. Governments reminding them of their limited powers. All state constitutions are restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Constitution Article VI “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

“Rights” are defined generally as “powers of free action.” And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. Being free is to be not subject to legal constraint of another. Being unconstrained is having power to follow the dictates of one’s own will; not subject to the dominion of another; not compelled to involuntary servitude as opposed to “slave.” [Black’s Law 4th edition]

“Rights are not a crime; the claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime.” [Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489].

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitution rights.” [Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973)].

We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” [Simmons vs. U.S. 390, U.S. 389(1968)].

The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime.” [Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489].

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491]

Governments use statutes to control the will of society and the individuals. This kind of statutory control dates back to Babylon and as a government ratchets down the control of the People, they become more and more authoritarian, whereas egotistical power hungry people fill the positions, that lord over the People to the point that just challenging these People will find them in jail, whether they are guilty of a crime or not. A Society will be as just as its courts. The American People do not need government to control their will and punish ttheir every action, thats what totalitarian governments do.

Under common law We the People are responsible for our own actions, this is written in the hearts of men and if we injure another just courts require restitution not punishment, whereas crimes often require both restitution and punishment that actually restores people back into society. Clearly our out of control judiciary does not, will not and cannot accomplish this goal because they rule by status quo, statutes and vindictiveness and not just laws. The following videos prove the point.

The following documents can and will restore America to the America our founding fathers envisioned if We the People and our Sheriffs work together to restore Law and Order again. Thomas Jefferson said: “If a People expect to be ignorant and free; they expect what never was and never will be.”

We offer a FREE CIVICS COURSE for all our members all Grand Jury Adminstrators are requied to take the course before serving the People and their Juries. We welcome all Sheriffs, their deputies and other elected servants to take our free course. Our 120 hour course covers American History, Constitution, Common Law lectures and how America lost her way.

ATTENTION SHERIFFS: For free Constitutional and Sheriffs pocket handbooks simply send an email to us@uclgj.org Please include your title, name, address and how many handbooks for yourself and deputies we should send.

Constitution for the United States of America

“The tax which will be paid for education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests andnobleswhowillriseupifweleavethepeopletoignorance.”– Thomas Jefferson

“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and, if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” – Thomas Jefferson

FIRST PRINCIPLES DUE PROCESS

The County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal are not in office to serve government servants they are there to serve the People by guarding against government abuse. They are to make sure that the accused receive Due Process. If the County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal do not understand Due Process they are to forthwith learn or resign.

The County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal are to make sure that no warrant is executed without a sworn affidavit and a wet ink signature of a judge without which it is no warrant and cannot be executed. The County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal are to receive no prisoners that have not been indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.

Amendment V “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury“

The County Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal are to make sure that Habeas Corpus is obeyed and if the court and or witnesses fail to respond it is the duty of the County Sheriff and or the U.S. Marshal to release the prisoner(s) immediately.

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 9 Clause 2 “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended”

“Due course of law, this phrase is synonymous with due process of law or law of the land and means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.” – Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542

Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States provides: “No person shall—be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases due course of law, and the law of the land are sometimes used; but all three of these phrases have the same meaning and that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament.” Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616

“Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process.” Leeper vs.

Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225

“The Due Process Clause has its origin in Magna Carta. As originally drafted, the Great Charter provided that “[n]o freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” MagnaCarta, ch. 29, in 1 E. Coke, The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 45 (1797)” KERRY v. DIN Decided June 15, 2015

The Simplicity of Law

Statutes that control men places men under the rule of other men and thereby enslave them. Common Law places men under the rule of the Governor of the Universe, who thereby rules over them. And the Governor of the Universe established His bench which is the Jury who is to judge under his principles.

“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn

There are two Common Law principles (maxims) which state that (1) for there to be a crime there must be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim there can be no crime, and (2) there must be a remedy for every injury.

“… In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law. “In all other cases,” he says, it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded. And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress…” 5 U.S. 137,

Marbury v. Madison

“Corpus delicti. The body of a crime. The body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e. g., the corpse of a murdered man, the charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, the substance or foundation of a crime; the substantial fact that a crime has been committed.” People v. Dick, 37 Cal. 281

“For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945

COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THE LAND

America was built upon God’s Law which is called “Natural Law” or “Common Law”. AT LAW, Blacks 4th: This phrase is used to point out that a thing is to be done according to the course of the common law; it is distinguished from a proceeding in equity.

THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE‘S GOD – “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them … We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Declaration of Independence

U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law…”

“The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261

“Common law as distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.” 1 Kent, Comm. 492 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 21 S.Ct. 561, 181 U.S. 92, 45 L.Ed. 765; Barry

“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and it was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.” 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114

Constitution Article VI Clause 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary “

THE FOUNDATION OF GOD’S LAW is found in Mathew 22:35-40– “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

We the People empowered the Legislative Branch to write codes and statutes to control money, commerce, naturalization, bankruptcies, counterfeiting, law of the sea, etc. U.S. Constitution Article I Section 6 and 9. We the People did “NOT” give Congress power to write codes and statutes to control the behavior of We the People. We the People are the master Congress are our servants. To legislate We the Peoples’ behavior is to rule over the People, servants do not rule over the People.

The BAR teaches lawyers that the Common Law has been abrogated and lawyers advise all elected servants that the Common Law has been abrogated and that is advocating the overthrow the “Law of the Land” which is the overthrow of the United States of America in violation of 18 USC §2385 Advocating overthrow of Government: “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof…”

THE COUNTY SHERIFF

COUNTY SHERIFF conservator of the peace — The County Sheriff is a Constitutional Officer; elected by the People; and, bound by oath as guardian of the Peoples’ unalienable rights secured by the

Constitution. The Constitution for the United States of America and its capstone Bill of Rights is the “Law of the Land”; and, all statutes and state constitutions repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America are null and void. If the Sheriff lacks a full understanding of the Constitution which is “Common Law”, it would stand to reason that he is vulnerable to violation of his oath in that he may not recognize and comprehend when judges and politicians violate the Common Law; thus, making himself

technically guilty of treason.

THE DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SHERIFF CANNOT BE DIMINISHED by those

in the legislature and courts; nor can it be diminished by any state constitution. When it comes to enforcing the Law, which is to say enforcing the Constitution for the United States of America, the Sheriff, being the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer”, answers to We the People; no one else, not even the Governor; like any other elected official, the Sheriff cannot be removed from office by another elected official. He can only be removed by the People at the ballot box; or, by recall; or, by indictment by the Grand Jury.

The United States Supreme Court said: “The Sheriff is the ‘Chief Executive and Administrative Officer’ of a county, chosen by popular election. His principal duties are in aid of the criminal and civil courts of record [Common Law Courts] such as serving process, summoning juries, executing judgments, holding judicial sales and the like. He is also the ‘Chief Conservator of the Peace’ within his territorial jurisdiction.”

The Sheriff, being the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and the highest Peace Officer of the entire County in which he was elected, is under the obligation to secure the peace; he answers to the People alone – unlike the State Police, who are code enforcement officers, serving the state and answering to the governor; and, unlike city, town or village police, who are also code enforcement officers serving the corporate municipalities, answering to commissioners or mayors. All these officers have a conflict of interest because they have no constitutional authority or concerns; they serve the system of codes and statutes instead of upholding the Constitution and serving the People; whereas, the Sheriff reports directly to the People, not the corporate municipalities; the duties, responsibilities and authorities of the County Sheriff, as a Constitutional Officer, are, at a minimum, the same as they were when the State Constitutions were originally written.

When a Sheriff or a U.S. Marshall consults a BAR judge, a BAR attorney or a bureaucrat to ask whether the judge, attorney or bureaucrat is acting outside of his authority, the Sheriff is doing something no different than consulting the fox as to whether the fox is raiding the hen house. If the Sheriff cannot ascertain whether a judge, or any other government servant, is abusing his powers, thereby violating the unalienable rights of the People, without asking that servant whether he is doing so, how can the Sheriff perform his duty? If a politician, judge or prosecutor violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the Sheriff and the U.S. Marshall to call the Grand Jury and ask the People for an Indictment. This is the Sheriff’s responsibility. Were the Sheriff to seek “permission” of a prosecutor or judge for an arrest of a politician, judge or prosecutor whom the Sheriff finds in violation of the Constitution, the Sheriff would be disempowering his own authority; he would be functioning as a tool to the very ones violating the Constitution; he would, thereby, be violating his own oath. Obviously then, no politician can come between the Sheriff and the People. Regardless of what they have been taught, it is the duty of the Sheriff to seek an indictment, not the prosecutor. Prosecutors call the Grand Jury when the state has an issue; but, the Peoples’ business is the Sheriff’s business; and, it is the Sheriff’s duty to protect the People from those who would encroach upon their rights. Likewise, the courts were designed to exist for the purpose of serving and protecting the People from criminals and tyrants.

What the Sheriff needs to realize is that all states, cities, towns, and villages in America have been moving towards corporatism; that is to say they have corporate charters; and, that the police forces, such as State Police, City Police, Town Police and Village Police work for the corporation, not the People; they are hired by the corporate municipality to uphold codes, not the Constitution; they are code enforcement officers, not law enforcement officers; and, it is the duty of the Sheriff to know when the People within his county are suffering violation of their unalienable rights by code enforcement officers; and, if he fails that duty, then that County is Lawless and the Sheriff is to blame.

The Sheriff works for and answers to the People alone. His sole duty is to protect the unalienable rights of the People within his County and within the courts against police brutality, tyrannical judges and abusive government agencies. Sheriffs rarely perform the duties that they were actually elected to exercise, because they are, unfortunately, constitutionally ignorant.

The Sheriff is to make sure that “Due Process of Law” is met before any arrest or seizure by police enforcement within his County; and, before any executions of judgments. Even a U.S. Marshal or other Federal Agent cannot execute a Warrant of any sort within a county without first notifying the Sheriff; and, it is the duty of the Sheriff to make sure “Due Process of Law” is met before allowing a Code Enforcement Officer, a U.S. Marshal or other Federal Agent to proceed. He is also duty bound to prevent SWAT team raids against, innocent under the law, code violators.

DUE PROCESS

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

ALL ARREST WARRANTS MUST:

1.) have a “wet-ink signature of a judge”; and,

2.) have a “Sworn Affidavit” attached by a “witness” or “injured party”. If there is no injured party, there is no crime. The State can never be the injured party.

Few Internal Revenue Service Liens are lawful; and, yet, County Clerks, on a daily basis, file “Notices of Lien” in counties without proof of “Due Process”; and, Sheriffs execute them, becoming complicit in conspiracy under the “Color of Law” – a crime. In order for an IRS Lien to be lawful the following documents “must” be served:

There must be a warrant with a wet ink signature of a Judge, not a

An Affidavit of Proof of Claim, i.e., an IRS Form 4490;

An Affidavit of Proof of Fiduciary Relationship, i.e., an IRS Form 56

All of the above “must” accompany the “Notice of Lien” before the Clerk can file the Lien; and, before the Sheriff can act upon such Lien.

All Federal or State Warrants “MUST” have the following:

Warrant must have a wet ink signature of a Judge, not a

There must be a sworn Affidavit by an accusing party accompanying the

Sheriffs “MUST” prevent the execution of any warrants served upon person or property by Federal, State, County, City, Town or Village code enforcement officers that do not meet the two requirements above. If there is no indictment the Sheriff can only hold the person for 48 hours after which they must be released. If the arrest with or without an indictment is challenged with a Habeas Corpus and the Party holding the person does not answer within three days the Sheriff “MUST” release the person. THIS IS DUE PROCESS. Rarely should a person be arrested for a crime before receiving an indictment, Sheriffs should use their common sense before permitting Federal and State arrests in his County without an indictment. All code violation arrests must show constitutional authority for the legislation of such codes. Any code violation that violates the unalienable right(s) of a person is null and void.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

“The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime”… “a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law“. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth

v. Birmingham AI. 373 US 262:(1962)

All town, city and village courts are administrative courts; they are not adhering to the “Law of the Land”, i.e., the Constitution; and, therefore, they have “no power” to fine or incarcerate; therefore,

every time a County Sheriff receives a prisoner from these courts, the Sheriff becomes complicit in conspiracy under the “Color of Law” – a crime.

When a judge violates the right of a People to Due Process in court; and, the Sheriff does nothing, the Sheriff becomes complicit in conspiracy under the “Color of Law” – a crime.

When the Sheriff seeks the consent of a prosecutor before arresting a judge, the Sheriff transfers his duty to the prosecutor; the Sheriff violates his oath – a crime. When the Sheriff witnesses, or receives a Sworn Affidavit that a judge is violating the unalienable rights of a People, the Sheriff is required by his oath to arrest the judge; and, if a prosecutor tries to commit “Felony Rescue” by dismissing the case, the Sheriff is required by his oath to arrest the prosecutor as well. The Sheriff is well served by first calling forth a “Grand Jury” to seek an “Indictment”; should the Grand Jury then issue an Indictment the Sheriff is required by his oath to arrest the judge. History recalls that the Grand Jury was normally called by the Sheriff or Coroner; rarely by the prosecutor. The Sheriff can call the Grand Jury at will; and, as often as he wills; and, he should in order to secure an indictment upon which to base an arrest. Since legislative provisions were made for the prosecutor to call for the Grand Jury overtime the State monopolized on the calling of the Grand Jury and overtime the State morphed into the “injured party” in the name of the People, resulting today in the absence of restitution to the real “injured party”; and thereby removing the common law maxim “there must be a remedy for every injury”.

The Sheriff can arrest any Federal Agent or Police officer whom he finds violating the unalienable rights of a People. The Sheriff can arrest the Governor or any elected or appointed official whom he finds violating the unalienable rights of a People. If the Sheriff feels more comfortable seeking an indictment before an arrest, he should do so.

The Sheriff’s “Rule of Thumb” when it comes to knowing the authority of a Judge, should be “American Jurisprudence”; any Judge acting outside of jurisprudence should be arrested for violating the unalienable rights of their victim.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER V. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: The principal challenge for the Sheriff is embodied in code enforcement officers. Codes and statutes that attempt to control the behavior of People are repugnant to the Constitution; and, are, therefore, null and void. Of course We the People, through our Constitution, vested our Legislatures, at both the Federal and State level, to write statutes; but, not statutes that violate our unalienable rights. Our Constitution never vested County, City, Township or Village Legislatures with statute-writing powers. The Sheriff has a duty to uphold the Constitution. The dilemma of the Sheriff, then, in order to obey the United States Supreme Court rulings, and the United States Constitution to uphold his oath; is that he must first understand the Constitution; and, that is the purpose of this course.

Does the Sheriff have the fortitude to keep his oath to uphold the Common Law? Will he betray his oath; and, therefore, the People who have entrusted him as their Constitutional law enforcer? Will he uphold the Common Law above the will of BAR-driven legislators, judges, prosecutors and their code enforcement officers, i.e. those who truly believe that statutes are above the Constitution? Treasonous

BAR schools have been teaching codes and statutes as law for more than fifty (50) years. If we fail now to correct this error, America will be lost.

WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT: A form of government guaranteed by The Constitution for the United States of America at Article IV, Section 4; which means we have a government that in mandated by our Constitution to obey the Rule of Law, which, in our case, is Common Law.

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government; and, shall protect each of them against invasion.” – U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 4

When an organization like the BAR advocates the overthrow of the Constitution, that is to say, the overthrow of Common Law, such organization is advocating the overthrow of our Government in violation of 18 USC §2385.

ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT: “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government; prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence; or attempts to do so…” – 18 USC §2385

WHEN A JUDGE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION; were the Sheriff to seek permission from a prosecutor to seek an indictment; were the prosecutor to fail to call forth a Grand Jury to seek such an indictment; and, were the Sheriff to acquiesce to this; the Sheriff would be disempowering his own authority; submitting to the will of the prosecutor; breaking his oath; becoming part of the conspiracy to cover up a crime; guilty of felony rescue – a crime. When a judge breaks the law, it is the duty of the sheriff to arrest the judge; and, go directly to the Grand Jury for an Indictment. It has only been recently, in the last fifty (50) years or so, that the Sheriff has been unlawfully told that he must first filter the crime through the BAR–taught prosecutors who work for the state, not the People; and, who, almost always, refuse to bring a crime before the Grand Jury when a state official is involved. This is “exactly why” America is in a Constitutional crisis. Only by educating the Sheriff can We the People, working with the Sheriff, save America.

Another obstacle, a two-fold obstacle, that the Sheriff must recognize is the puppet Grand Jury and the puppet Trial jury. Because these juries are controlled by the foxes; which is to say they are controlled by judges and prosecutors; the jurors are given their guidelines upon which to deliberate by the all- controlling BAR prosecutor. The Jurors are instructed in the statutes; told they must follow these

statutes as law; the BAR prosecutor in this way is trumping Common Law; which, of course, is “jury tampering” – a crime.

The ultimate dilemma for the Sheriff is: “What am I to do?” The solution is simple: take the case to the Common Law Grand Jury. Clearly, the Sheriff cannot take a case involving a judge, a prosecutor or a corporate pay-rolled official to the unlawful puppet jury; a jury controlled by the foxes. Lysander Spooner said:

“Any government that is its own judge of; and, determines authoritatively for the people what are its own powers over the people; is an absolute government, of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other; or, at least, no more accurate definition of despotism, than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course, retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.” – Trial by Jury, 1852

We the People, across America, in every state of the union, are doing exactly that which we should have been doing all along. We were helped to discover these truths through a United States Supreme Court decision in which Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, made clear the Law of the Land when he said:

“Because the Grand Jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such supervisory judicial authority exists; and, that the Disclosure Rule applied here exceeded the Tenth Circuit’s authority. [R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights; but, not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office.” – U.S. v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 504 U.S. 36 118 L.Ed.2d 352, 1992

This is the authority by which We the People act; and, by which we come with a determination to put that fox back in its cage and save America. Now the Sheriff knows and the question before him is: “Are you going to continue feeding that fox; thereby participate in his treasonous acts against the People of the United States of America; or, will you develop a constitutional back-bone through

education; and, join the People to bring law and order back into our courts; and, thereby back into our government; and, save America?”

Clearly it takes fortitude for a People to step up, take control and do that which is right for God, country and posterity. This is the Sheriff’s duty. This is the moment in time and history that will define integrity or lack thereof. We the People under the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury have tolerated the inaction of our Sheriffs because we understand, having once been without understanding of the Constitution ourselves. We have awakened to the hard reality; we have decided to do that which is just for ourselves and for our posterity. Now our Sheriffs know! The choices are: 1.) step up and enforce the law of the land; 2.) resign; or, 3.) prepare to face the Grand Jury for treason. The due time is upon us.

The Constitution for the United States of America is a Common Law document which demands obedience to the Common Law.

“This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and, all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and, the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” – U.S. Constitution Article VI Clause 2

Therefore, when there is a conflict between the Law of the Land and the statutes of the corporate charters, the Constitution must prevail. Only those statutes, for which We the People have given our consent for legislators to write, are law; law consistent with the Constitution. Our Sheriffs have now embarked upon the Constitutional Course of “Law 101”; yet, it does not get any more difficult than this.

A sheriff well trained in constitutional (law) enforcement can uphold the Constitution. The Sheriff and his deputies have been trained in the law of statute and code enforcement, in technique and self- defense. Now it is the sheriff’s responsibility to make sure that he and his deputies are well trained in the Constitution for the United States of America so they can serve the People. Were any of his deputies to violate the Constitution, even unknowingly, the sheriff would bear the guilt and the responsibility complicit with his deputies.

The sheriff is responsible for his entire county, including the court and the jail. Wherever legislators, past or present, have removed the Duties of the Constitutional Sheriff; claiming to have entrusted them to code enforcement officers; the People can be sure that the Common Law of our Constitution is not being applied in our courts, in our jails or in our counties; for the very nature of the system of code enforcement serves the corporate government charters, not the People.

THE DUTY OF THE SHERIFF IN THE COURTS: Bailiffs “must be deputies of the sheriff”; trained to understand their duties. They must be approachable by the People in order that the People may report constitutional violations within the court. Bailiffs must have the fortitude to remove a judge from the bench were the judge to violate the unalienable right of a People. Unalienable rights are God-

given; cannot be trumped by legislators. Where there is a conflict between a statute of a legislature and the Common Law, the Constitutional Common Law must prevail. A few of the many United States Supreme Court rulings that follow are offered here for the empowerment of the Sheriff; that the Sheriff may enforce the law; that in thus honoring his oath to the Constitution, the People and the Law of the Land, the Common Law Grand Juries will rise up in full support of him.

“Law of the Land”, “Due Course of Law” and “Due Process of Law” are synonymous.

“All laws, rules and practices, which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void” – Marbury v. Madison, 5th U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law; but, is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution), it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law; and, no courts are bound to enforce it.” – Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908);

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

“…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” – Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.

“Under our system of government, upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as [to] his/her conduct to[wards] others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” – Mugler v.

Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” – Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” – Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US22, at 24.

“A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” – Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113

JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS: Courts today are de facto, operating contrary to Common Law; under the rules of chancery, not common law. Bailiffs, being deputies of the sheriff, trained to understand their duties, must ensure that courts operate according to law.

There are only two (2) courts that We the People have ordained to operate within America under the Constitution; called law and equity; as we read:

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2

COURTS OF EQUITY: Have Jurisdiction where Judges hear and decide commercial/contract cases and other disputes; where there exists one jurist called the judge who is bound by the Article VI Law of the Land. Cases ruled upon in Equity Courts can be appealed to higher courts.

COURTS OF LAW: Have Jurisdiction where juries, i.e., a tribunal, hears and decides “all” criminal cases, commercial/contract cases and other disputes; all Criminal Courts are called Courts of Record; they are to proceed under Common Law. In a trial by jury, the judge is to act as administrator and can make “no Rulings”; were he to make a ruling, he would be acting under the “Color of Law” – a crime. The Constitution calls this “bad behavior” (not adhering to the Constitution); such a judge should be immediately removed from the Bench by the Bailiff; and, brought before the Grand Jury for Indictment.

“In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars

$20.00, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and, no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law.” – Bill of Rights Amendment VII

“The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior” – U.S. Constitution Article III Section 1

The requirements for a criminal case to proceed are as follows:

THERE MUST BE AN INJURED PARTY: “Corpus delecti; The body of a crime; The body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e. g., the corpse of a murdered man; the charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, the substance or foundation of a crime; the substantial fact that a crime has been committed.” – People v. Dick, 37 281

“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.” – Sherar

v. Cullen, 481 F. 945

THERE MUST BE AN INDICTMENT BY AN “UNFETTERED” GRAND JURY: This means a Grand Jury that is not controlled by a judge or a prosecutor. If there is no indictment, a person cannot be “held” to answer:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, [a crime that requires a prison sentence] unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

– U.S. Constitution Amendment V

ALL DECISIONS IN A COURT OF RECORD ARE BY THE JURY ALONE: Called a tribunal, without any interference from a judge. The definition of a court of record is: “A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate [judge] designated generally to hold it; proceeding according to the course of Common Law; its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony; has power to fine or imprison for contempt; generally possesses a seal.” – Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. , 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v.

JUDICIAL PROCESS – WARRANTS – THE BILL OF RIGHTS: Amendment V provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law as supported by the following U.S. Supreme Court rulings:

“…no man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense.” –

Kinney V. Beverly, 2 Hen. & M (VA) 381, 336

“Amendment V of the Constitution for the United States provides that no person shall

… be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases ‘due course of law’, and ‘the law of the land’ are sometimes used; but, all three of these phrases have the same meaning; and, that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament.” – Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616

Therefore, no Warrant is to be executed by a Sheriff without a wet-ink signature of a judge; a rubber stamp or a clerk’s signature is not sufficient. No legal instrument has executional powers without a signature; and, must be accompanied with a Sworn Affidavit; this includes Federal Liens and IRS Liens. A Notice of Lien or Notice of Levy is not due process according to the Bill of Rights.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and, no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation; and, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

– Amendment IV

HABEAS CORPUS – “THE GREAT WRIT OF LIBERTY”: In the early days, Habeas Corpus was not connected with the idea of Liberty. It was a useful device in the struggle for control between Common Law and Equity Courts. By the middle of the fifteenth century, the issue of Habeas Corpus, together with privilege, was a well–established way to remove a cause from an inferior court where the defendant could show some special connection with one of the central courts which entitled him to have his case tried there. In the early seventeenth century The Five Knights’ Case involved the clash

between the Stuart claims of prerogative and the Common Law; and, was, in the words of one of the judges: “the greatest cause that I ever knew in this court.” Over the centuries the Writ became a viable bulwark between the powers of government and the rights of the people in both England and the United States.

In the United States Habeas Corpus exists in two forms: Common Law and statutory. The Constitution for the United States of America acknowledges the right of the Peoples to the Common Law of England as it was in 1789. What is that Common Law? It does not consist of absolute, fixed and inflexible rules; but, broad and comprehensive principles based on justice, reason and common sense… The Constitution for the United States of America mandates that “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…” Habeas Corpus is a case in law, i.e., proceeding according to the Common Law in a Court of Record; therefore, it is the Grand Jury as arbiter that shall be enforcer of the law; the first Grand Jury of twenty-five (25) free men, summoned itself and wrote the following:

“If any of our civil servants shall have transgressed against any of the people in any respect; and, they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay; or, shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security; and, their transgression shall have been shown to four (4) Jurors of the aforesaid twenty five (25); and, if those four

Jurors are unable to settle the transgression, they shall come to the twenty-five (25), showing to the Grand Jury the error which shall be enforced by the law of the land.” – Magna Charta, June 15, A.D. 1215, 61

THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT: Protecting such

Republic against all violence, foreign and domestic violence. Thus, were a judge to enforce anything outside of his authority under the color of law, “Judicial Immunity” would be lost; it would be nothing less than lawless violence. Likewise, legislative jurisdiction not authorized by the United States Constitution is as inoperative as though it had never been passed; and a judge that would proceed without jurisdiction, would be indictable for treason; judges are expected to know the law. – The Constitution for the United States of America Article IV Section 4:

“Misuse of power; possessed by virtue of state law; and, made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state; is action taken under the ‘color of state law’.” – Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188

939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326

“No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and, an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries, is nothing less than lawless violence.”

– Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

“We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” – Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264; U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200

No State can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor, deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Any court that ignores due process is not a Common Law Court; such an action proves a court unlawful; and, consequently, has no legal authority over the petitioner without his consent.

CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM: “Sovereign People shall not be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or anywise destroyed … but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” – Magna Charta Chapter 39.

“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

DUE COURSE OF LAW: “This phrase is synonymous with ‘Due Process of Law’ or ‘Law of the Land’; and, means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.” [Court of Record] – Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542.

“Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice [Court of Record]

Some have argued that the People have relinquished sovereignty through various contractual devices in which rights were not expressly reserved. However, that cannot hold because rights are unalienable. The People retain all rights of sovereignty at all times. The exercise of sovereignty by the People is further clarified when one considers that the Constitutional government agencies have no genuine sovereign power of their own; but, must rely upon such authority as is granted by the People.

In the 1930s in New York, the Judiciary and the BAR pressed for a Constitutional Convention endeavoring to eliminate the unalienable right of Habeas Corpus, among other issues. The People were so concerned about the attack on their liberties that instead of abolishing Habeas Corpus, the people submitted in writing their overwhelmingly approval.

“The privilege of a Writ or Order of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.” §4 Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938; and, approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.

When our founders debated the Constitution, they included Habeas Corpus as a remedy against evil: “The trial by jury in criminal cases, aided by the Habeas-Corpus Act, seems, therefore, to be alone concerned in the question. And, both of these are provided for, in the most ample manner, in the plan of the convention.”… The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and, the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: ‘To bereave a man of life,’ says he, ‘or, by violence to confiscate his estate without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but, confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and, therefore, a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.’ And, as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the Habeas-Corpus Act, which, in one place, he calls ‘the bulwark of the British Constitution.’” – Federalist Papers Nos. 83, 84, Hamilton to the People of the State of New York

THE UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 28: acknowledges that it is not the responsibility of the petitioner to know by what claim or authority the state acts; but, that the petitioner may inquire as to the cause of the restraint by Habeas Corpus. “A court, justice or judge [tribunal] entertaining an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus shall forthwith award the Writ or issue an Order directing the respondents to Show Cause why the Writ should not be granted.” – 28 USC §2243

“Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus … shall allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or detention; the name of the person who has custody over him; and, by virtue of what claim or authority, if known.” – 28 USC §2242

When the persons holding the prisoner neglect to answer said Habeas Corpus, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure activate; and, the prisoner must be released under the entry of Default. “When a party, against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought, has failed to plead or otherwise defend, as provided by these rules; and, that fact is made to appear by Affidavit or otherwise [under seal], the clerk shall enter the party’s Default.” – Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 55

“Whoever willfully and unlawfully removes or conceals a proceeding filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States; or, in any public office; or, with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years, or ”

“Whoever, having the custody of any such proceeding, willfully and unlawfully conceals, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years, or both; and, shall forfeit his office; and, be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” – 18 USC 2071

Habeas Corpus is a judicial process, not open for debate. If the prisoner were not released, the party that continued to restrain the prisoner would become guilty of false imprisonment and kidnaping. The arrest of said perpetrators would be the appropriate action by the Sheriff; and, the said perpetrators would need to be brought before the Grand Jury for indictment.

COURT FILING: If a clerk were to refuse to file any legal document, the clerk would be committing a crime.

“Whoever, being a clerk of a District Court of the United States, willfully refuses or neglects to make or forward any report, certificate, statement or document as required by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one (1) year, or both.

– 18 USC §2076

If a clerk, judge or anyone were to conceal, remove or mutilate any document filed within the Court that person would be committing a crime; and, the Sheriff would be duty-bound to arrest him.

CONCEALMENT – REMOVAL – MUTILATION GENERALLY:

“Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or, attempts to do so; or, with intent to do so, takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing; filed or “deposited” with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States; or, in any public office; or, with any judicial or public officer of the United States; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years, or ”

“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper or other thing; willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies or destroys the same; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three (3) years, or both; and, shall forfeit his office; and, be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term ‘office’ does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.” – 18 USC 2071

RIGHT TO COUNCIL BY NON-BAR MEMBERS: Often, in criminal courts, when people desire to speak for themselves; or, have “assistance of counsel” that are not BAR members; judges reject and resist any move in that direction. Judges continue to force BAR lawyers that are taught in their BAR schools to never bring Common Law into the courts. If they were to do so, the BAR judge and/or the BAR prosecutor would report them; and, they would lose their BAR license; and, be barred from the court. If the victim were to continue to resist, the judge might incarcerate the victim for “contempt”; or, order a “Competency Test”; and, then, the judge might force a BAR attorney on the victim; were the Sheriff and his deputies to fail to realize that the judge was violating the unalienable right of the victim, which right is protected by the

6th Amendment; and, if the Sheriff were then to do nothing; the Sheriff would be complicit to

conspiracy – a crime.

“Right to have the Assistance of Counsel…” – Bill of Rights Amendment VI

“The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state.” – Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239

“The practice of law is an occupation of common right.” – Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)

AMERICA RUNS ON FICTION OF LAW: All attorneys and judges are BAR taught. Courts today operate under the rules of chancery; not the rules of Common Law. Our founding fathers rejected chancery; did not include it in the Constitution; it is in direct conflict with Common Law.

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.” – U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2

Therefore most of our courts are running on fiction; not on law.

FICTION OF LAW: “Something known to be false is assumed to be true.” – Ryan v.

Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621

“…that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.” – Hoke v. Henderson, 15, N.C.15, 25 AM Dec 677

Our elected servants are out of control. America is operating under fiction of law. It is the duty of the Sheriff, working with the People if necessary, to protect the unalienable rights of the People by simply enforcing the laws as enumerated herein. Only then will America run on the Law again.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

The Sheriff took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; but, to fulfill his oath; to uphold and defend the Constitution; the Sheriff must know the Constitution. The Sheriff needs to learn the Common Law; and, he needs to teach the Common Law to his deputies. Any Sheriff that would fail to do so, would be required to resign his position.

ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN SAVE AMERICA: AND, it is the Sheriff’s duty to lawfully protect and serve the People. Were the People to rise up together; were the People to stand against tyrants in our government; only then would the People be able to return to our former state under Common Law. Were the People to accomplish that noble feat, the whole mass of the People would first need to become well informed and well educated in the Law; for, the People have already, nearly lost America to fascism.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and, if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them; but, to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” –

Thomas Jefferson

“An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self- government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson

THE DUTY OF THE SHERIFF IN THE JAIL: The sheriff is responsible for the lawful implementation of the county correctional facility; and is, therefore, liable for any unlawful detention. Simply stated, an unlawful detention would be anyone held without a presentment or indictment by a grand jury; unless he were detained for a violent act; being held for indictment of a grand jury; and,

then, brought before a court of law to answer; this is the unalienable right of the Peoples; a right protected by the 5th Amendment.

“Law, in its regular course of administration through courts of justice, is due process.”

– Leeper v. Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225

“By the Law of the Land is more clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.” – Dartmouth College Case, 4Wheat, U.S. 518, 4 ED 629

“No person shall be held to answer for a … crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury… nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without ‘Due Process of Law’.” – Bill of Rights Amendment V

‘DUE COURSE OF LAW’: “this phrase is synonymous with ‘Due Process of Law’ or ‘Law of the Land’; and, means law in its regular course of administration through Courts of Justice.” – Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542

All Federal and State Courts are to be Courts of Record. When declared by a State Constitution to be a Court of Record, a County Court, as well, would be a Court of Record; and, proceed according to the Common Law. All city, town and village courts are NOT courts of record; they proceed according to

statutes; not the Constitution; therefore, they violate due process; and, thus they have NO power to fine or incarcerate. There are a few exceptions: Whereas New York City courts, under the New York State Constitution, are Courts of Record; they, therefore, are to proceed according to the Common Law.

COURTS OF RECORD AND COURTS NOT OF RECORD: “The former, being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled or recorded for a perpetual memory and testimony; and, which have power to fine or imprison for contempt; Error lies to their judgments; and, they generally possess a seal. Courts NOT of record are those of

N.E. 229, 231

“The decisions of a Superior Court may only be challenged in a Court of Appeal. The decisions of an Inferior Court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a Superior Court, one may sue an Inferior Court directly, rather than resort to Appeal to an Appellate Court. A Decision of a Court of Record may not be appealed. It is binding

on ALL other courts. However, no Statutory or Constitutional Court – whether it be an Appellate or a Supreme Court – can second guess the Judgment of a Court of Record … The judgment of a Court of Record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the Judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)

It is imperative that the Sheriff know the difference between a Court of record and a Court not of Record because a Court not of Record CANNOT incarcerate; THEREFORE, were a Sheriff to incarcerate someone held or tried in a Court not of Record, that Sheriff would be participating in the

violation the unalienable right of that person to the due process of law protected by the 4th and 5th

Amendments – a crime.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall NOT be violated; and, NO Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or Affirmation; and, particularly describing the place to be searched; and, the persons or things to be seized.

– Bill of Rights Amendment IV

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” – Bill of Rights Amendment V

We realize this is a major problem, considering that county jails are filled with people tried in Courts NOT of Record. Some of these people may be guilty of a crime; which is something We the People will have to ascertain; and, We the People, through grand juries and trial juries, WILL endeavor to solve this HUGE problem as soon as we are able to access the courts. Nevertheless, the Sheriff

CANNOT continue to receive prisoners who were tried in Courts NOT of Record. Were the Sheriff to hold the belief that one of the accused was in fact guilty of a crime, he would need to bring the issue to

a Grand Jury for indictment; and, then, to be tried in a Court of Record. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which we now offer to more thoroughly education the Sheriff, were based on Common Law; and, thereby authenticate and substantiate this most important point.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways; and, to transport his property thereon; either by carriage or by automobile; is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will; but, [is] a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579

“Undoubtedly the right of locomotion; the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination; is an attribute of personal liberty; and, the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment; and, by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v. Dulles, 96

App D.C. 287, 293

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right CANNOT be converted into a crime.”

– Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489

“There can be NO sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights.” – Sherar v. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973)

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” – Simmons v. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. – Bill of Rights Amendment II

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law; but, is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the

general principles follow that it imposes NO duties, confers NO right, creates NO office, bestows NO power or authority on anyone, affords NO protection and justifies NO acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An

unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a

statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law; and, NO courts are bound to enforce it.” – Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908);

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

“…every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is NOT bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” – Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.

“Under our system of government, upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does NOT claim to control him/her except as his/her conduct to others; leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” – Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” – Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60

“The assertion of Federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is NOT to be defeated under the name of local practice.” – Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22 at 24

“A State may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” – Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113

“There can be NO sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights.” – Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

“…those things which are considered as inalienable rights, which all citizens possess, cannot be licensed since those acts are NOT held to be a privilege.” – City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

“Constitutional ‘rights’ would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.” – Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” – Simmons v. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” – Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 USs 262

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, NOT subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all government exists and acts; and, the law is the definition and limitation of power …

For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails; as being the essence of slavery itself.” – Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370

THE DUTY OF THE SHERIFF IN THE COUNTY: The Sheriff, being Chief Executive and Administrative Officer; the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) and Highest Peace Officer of the entire County in which he was elected, has the absolute authority to arrest even the Governor or a Judge; and, then to call the Grand Jury directly for an Indictment; a Sheriff need not get permission from the District Attorney.

The Sheriff also has the authority and duty to secure liberty and peace within his county; and, if necessary, call the Posse Comitatus to assist. The challenge of the Sheriff today is from forces within our federal government that are unlawfully moving toward Martial Law in an effort to disarm the American People; the only motive of Martial Law is control of a captured population. We the People

have NOT given authority to the three (3) branches of Government to declare Martial Law; for, to have done so, would be self-destruction. Any attempt by Congress or the Executive to use military forces, foreign or domestic, against the People to bring them under Martial Law is an act of treason; war against the People; and, We the People will be dependent upon the Sheriff within each county to secure the peace by any means necessary; seeing that congress has been negligent in providing for the Militia.

Therefore, in times of emergency, the “only” Constitutional Authority to keep the peace during an invasion is the Posse Comitatus.

Whereas: the Sheriff is to call upon We the People of the county to secure the peace. Federal Agents and Foreign Troops on State Soil would be repugnant to our Constitution; an act of “war”. – II Amendment

POSSE COMITATUS: “The power or force of the county; the entire population of a county above the age of fifteen (15); which a Sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases; as to aid him in keeping the peace, in pursuing and arresting felons, etc.”

– 1 Bl.Comm. 343; Com. v. Martin, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 224

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, shall not be infringed.” – The Bill of Rights Amendment II

“To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia; and, for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” – U.S. Constitution Section 8 paragraph 16

UNITED STATES MARSHAL: The power, authority and duty of a U.S. Marshal is similar to that of the County Sheriff in that he is a constitutional officer having the power and authority to arrest any judge who might violate the unalienable rights of the People. One (1) Marshal is appointed by the President for each of the ninety-four (94) Federal Districts. The powers of the Marshal are defined, by constitutional authority, under the Judiciary act of 1789. The Marshal serves for a term of four (4) years; takes an oath of office; has the power to appoint deputies; and, shall produce a bond.

The duties of the U.S. Marshal, similar to those of the Sheriff, are to attend the District and Circuit Courts; execute throughout the District those lawful precepts directed to him; deliver Writs; Summon jurors; secure an impartial Trial; execute Warrants; and fulfill the responsibility of retaining, delivering and transporting prisoners in his custody as directed by the Courts.

Once a Marshal is appointed, he can be removed from office only by the People in Grand Jury by an Indictment for bad behavior.

“The power of appointing the person nominated, are [is a] political power[s], to be exercised by the President according to his own discretion. When he has made an appointment, he has exercised his whole power; and, his discretion has been completely applied to the case… the appointment cannot be annihilated; and, consequently, if the officer is by law not removable at the will of the President, the rights he has acquired are protected by the law...” – Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803); 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch) 1803

Marshals take an oath of office swearing to faithfully execute all “lawful precepts”; thereby remaining in “good behavior”, the Marshal is required to execute all the “lawful orders” of the Court. Marshals are Constitutional Judicial Officers; and, therefore, like the Sheriff, are required to execute the “Law of the Land”1 and protect the “Due Process” of the People;2 were the Marshal to fail to do all that is required of him; without acting outside of those powers to which the People consent, he would put

himself in bad behavior; and, would then be subject to removal from office by the People by Indictment from the Grand Jury.

When Federal SWAT Teams knock down doors in the middle of the night; terrify families; kill people; execute a violence so grave as to sometimes result even in the death of children and pets; all in the name of enforcing a Federal Lien; or; in retaliation of liberty group members whose noble interest is to restore the Constitution for the United States of America; but, in doing so pose a serious, even extinguishing threat to those Federal agencies and/or their agents that would violate the Law of the Land; it is the duty of the Marshal to prevent tyrannical abuse of power. Were the Marshal to allow this abuse he would be guilty of “felony rescue”; and, the Sheriff then would become duty–bound to arrest

1 U.S. Constitution Article VI. This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and, the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

all parties complicit in the event. The Common Law Grand Jury is on high–alert concerning such abuse; and, will be seeking indictments across the nation.

The Marshal, like the Sheriff, is the guardian of the Constitution, thereby duty bound to protect the due process of anyone standing before the court; as much as duty bound to execute all the lawful orders of the Court. Due process requires a presentment or indictment of an impartial Grand Jury for all criminal cases.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor, shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor, shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor, be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor, shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. – Amendment V

From the Bill of Rights and its Amendments, it is abundantly clear that the right to trial by a jury of one’s peers includes the fact that the jury would decide whether the Law upon which a People is brought to trial is itself a just Law and/or whether said Law should be applied in the case at hand; any interference with the prerogative of the jury in this most important aspect of due process would constitute “tampering with the jury”; and, would thereby constitute “denial of due process”. Were a judge or a prosecutor to address a jury in such manner as to persuade in the Law, the jury would no longer stand impartial; that judge and/or that prosecutor would be guilty of jury tampering – a crime.

“The constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent; (as in electing their functionaries, executive and legislative; and, deciding, by a jury of themselves, both fact and law in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or, they [the People] may ask [that the power of the People be exercised] by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be, at all times, armed; [that the People have the right] to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and, freedom of the press.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright; June 5, 1824

NULLIFICATION OF LAW: A series of resolutions prepared by Jefferson and adopted by the legislature of Kentucky in 1799; protested against the “Alien and Sedition Acts”, declared the laws within those Acts illegal; announced the strict constructionist theory of the Federal government; and, declared “nullification” to be “the rightful remedy”. – Kentucky Resolutions

THE LAWFUL PATH: The Sheriff is the last line of defense for the People. American Sheriffs must educate themselves with respect to all the duties enumerated in this course; all those duties enumerated in the Law of the Land; Sheriffs must work with People who are awakening all across America; Sheriffs must receive and ask for Indictments; they must enforce the Law; and, execute arrests. Only then can We save America from the tyrants that would destroy our American way of life; that would

replace our just, honorable and merciful Common Law, natural law, God’s law with despotic, tyrannical, abusive fiction. Whenever the Sheriff encounters dilemma or feels unsure with respect to the understanding or enforcement of his duties, We the People stand ready; the Sheriff can call upon the Jury Administrators who are yearning, laboring and praying to soon be seated in the Courts; and, until that glorious, victorious and liberating day, the Sheriff is invited to fax any and all concerns to the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury at (888) 891-8977; We the People will always endeavor to answer concerns with the necessary and appropriate Constitutional Common Law that will empower both the Sheriff and the People; additionally, the Sheriff may, at any time deemed necessary or prudent, call together twenty five (25) people in his own county to serve as a Grand Jury; should the Sheriff feel adequate to the orientation of the Jury he may certainly accomplish that; should the Sheriff desire assistance, We the People stand ready to provide either the orientation itself or sufficient materials to help the Sheriff accomplish a successful orientation of the jurors. The fate of America literally rests upon the oath of the Sheriff; upon the fulfillment of that oath; and thereby upon the Sheriff doing the just thing, the honorable thing and the merciful thing.

THE SURETIES OF THE PEACE

In a stunning 6 to 3 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the 1992 case United

States v. Williams, confirmed that:

“the American grand jury is neither part of the Judicial, Executive nor Legislative branch of government; but, instead belongs to the People; it is, in effect, a fourth branch of government ‘governed’ and administered to

directly by, and on behalf of, the American People; and, its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, drawing from history and many Supreme Court rulings, went on to say:

“The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. The common law of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional, functioning grand jury… It is in effect a fourth branch of government governed and administered to directly by, and on behalf of, the American people; and, its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation; and, in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge; and, deliberates in total secrecy. We have insisted that the grand jury remain ‘free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the

legitimate rights of any witness called before it.’ Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s ‘constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge’.” – United States v. Williams

The first grand jury of twenty-five (25) free men summoned itself and wrote the following:

“If any of our civil servants shall have transgressed against any of the people in any respect; and, they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay; or, shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security; and, their transgression shall have been shown to four ( 4) Jurors of the aforesaid twenty five (25); and, if those four

(4) Jurors are unable to settle the transgression they shall come to the twenty-five (25), showing to the Grand Jury the error which shall be enforced by the law of the land.” – Magna Charta, June 15, AD. 1215

And, it is under our own authority as sovereign People and therefore co-authors of the Magna Charta, connected in spirit and in fact, to remind our tyrannical servants that We the People, being the sureties of the peace, authored the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights that these tyrants hold in contempt; and, we intend to bring to remembrance the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence that when government becomes destructive, We the People act correctively, whereas we read:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it… laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Preamble

The governments of the United States belong to We the People, not these tyrants that fleece us daily in our own courts over which they have seized control. Therefore, We the People have reconstituted the Common Law Grand Juries in all 3,134 Counties of the United States. We have organized all Fifty

(50) States of our Union; and, have taken extraordinary steps to unify every State; and, We the People, presently many thousands strong in every State, have come together as the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury to liberate America from the tyrants that have seized control of the reigns of our government; and, to bring them to justice.

Once we restore Justice in our courts, thereby restoring our union through law enforcement, the blessings of liberty will be secured once again. Meanwhile, we are educating the People through this Constitutional Course and our Civics Course as we form administrations composed of four (4) of the People in each County of the United States in order to provide for the orientation of juries, bring civics and constitutional studies back into our schools, perform as a conduit between the People and sitting Grand Juries; and, to act as the investigative body of the Grand Juries.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

John F. Kennedy 26th President of the United States from 1961-1963 – “The President and the Press”

– Before the American Newspaper Publishers’ Association in New York City on April 27, 1961.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days; and, an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851, the New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed, as its London correspondent, an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke; and, with a family ill and undernourished; constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5.00 per installment; a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty Bourgeois cheating”.

But, when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent; history might have been different. And, I hope all publishers will bear this

lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press”. Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press”. But, those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague, it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But, neither, on the other hand, had he ever been a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some: [Bay of Pigs – was a military attack on Cuba, without Administrative knowledge, until a request by CIA operative George Bush to the President for military air support, which JFK refused] but, the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future – for reducing this threat; or, for living with it – there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival; and, to our security – a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern, both to the press and to the President – two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone; but, which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and, we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided

long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And, there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That, I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And, no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But, I do ask every publisher, every editor and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards; and, to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger”, the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared; and, however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And, yet, no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger”, then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear; and, its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions; by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion; on subversion instead of elections; on intimidation instead of free choice; on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published; its mistakes are buried, not headlined; its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned; no rumor is printed; no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security; and, the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring, through our newspapers, information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations

have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons; and, our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and, that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But, in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And, my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But, I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear; and, all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities; if I did not commend this problem to your attention; and, urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said; and, your newspapers have constantly said; that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed; and, would not seek to impose it if I had one. But, I am asking the members of the newspaper profession; and, the industry in this country; to reexamine their own responsibilities; to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger; and, to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And, I hope that every group in America – unions and businessmen and public officials at every level – will ask the same question of their endeavors; and, subject their actions to this same exacting test.

And, should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But, this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation – an obligation which I share. And, that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people; to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need; and, understand them as well – the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program; and, the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For, from that scrutiny, comes understanding; and, from that understanding, comes support or opposition. And, both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration; but, I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers – I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: “An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and, we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed; and, no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And, that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment – the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution – not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”; but, to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate; and, sometimes, even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news – for it is no longer far away and foreign; but, close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news, as well as improved transmission. And, it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security; and, we intend to do that.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three (3) recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press.

Now the links between the Nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the World; the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one World’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And, so, it is to the printing press – to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news – that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be – free and independent.

Note: The President spoke at the annual dinner of the Association’s Bureau of Advertising held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. His opening words “Mr. Chairman” referred to Palmer Hoyt, Editor and Publisher of the Denver Post, who acted as chairman of the dinner.

Citation: John F. Kennedy: “Address “The President and the Press” Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.,” April 27, 1961. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley,

RETURN TO SELF-GOVERNANCE

WE HAVE LOST OUR WAY – We have forgotten our place in history; that beacon upon the top of a mountain as an ensign on a hill. Our strength has become our shame because we put our trust in the shadow of cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men who have

trodden down the Law and shackled us with statutes of men. We have become a land of trouble and anguish; deaf to the Law of the Land; a place of oppression and perverseness; we have become the potters’ broken vessel. [Isaiah 30]

How did America succumb to such a state of being? Unknown forces covertly altered our course without our consent by seizing the reigns of our government. Questions that beg asking are:

Why is our education void of classes on “Civics”; void of classes on “The Constitution”; void of classes on “Common Law”?

Why have we been told that we need lawyers to interpret the very subjects that define who we are as a People and our control of our own destiny?

Why have we been told that America was “not” founded on Common Law?

Why have we been told that People who claim that they are “Sovereign” or demand their “Constitutional Rights” are “Terrorists”?

And, the most disturbing question: Why do we believe them?

How could we have been so blind to all these things when our Founding Documents have been right there for us to see all along; and, why have we been so late in looking!

Just exactly who is it that has been whispering these things into our ears? Has it been the Lawyers? The Politicians? The Political parties? Those who Disdain liberty? The Press? The Schools? Entertainment? Or, could it have been “all” of the above?

The answer to the question of “who” is the nefarious “Powers that Be”; Discover the struggle of America against this hidden power in our Free Civics Course right here at www.NationalLibertyAlliance.org. If you have not already taken the course, please add it to your curriculum now; it is critical to understanding and recognizing the “Enemy of Liberty”.

LIBERTYRISING – Only the People, working together with our Sheriffs and Marshals, can save America; and, they can do so simply by enforcing the law and re-establishing Justice in our courts. This we can accomplish only with informed Common Law Juries and informed Constitutional Officers.

NATIONAL LIBERTY ALLIANCE IS A FACILITATOR of education, organization, communication and principles with the sole objective of empowering People in the re-founding of America; and, instructing those who respond in how to do so. We are thousands of People poised in every State across America, approaching the intersection of terminal velocity and critical mass which we trust will be met in 2016 by the juncture of the will of God with that of his People.

OUR PLAN, founded in the Magna C[h]arta, Paragraph 61; and, being propelled into fruition, is to build Civil Administrations in every county that will serve as a conduit between the People and the Grand Jury; and, an investigative body for the Grand Jury. This Administrative Body will provide orientation, guidance and administration for the trial and grand juries. Grand Juries are seated for short periods of time; maybe a week; or, maybe five (5) or six (6) days out of a month, depending upon the county court case workload. It would be a wrong-doing to seat a Grand Jury indefinitely.

After filing press releases in every county across America which called for an assemblage of the People to re-constitute the Common Law Grand Jury in each of the 3,143 counties, we established a Unified State Common Law Grand Jury in each of the fifty (50) States; then, we assembled across the Nation to form the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury; an extraordinary act necessary to secure our Nation.

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS GRAND JURY is to meet head-on those subverts of the United States of America who are warring against the Constitution; and, thereby, warring against We the People. This Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury, as is customary to juries, will remain seated until it achieves its goal of securing Liberty and reinstating self-government at the grass-roots level, i.e., the county level, by reinstating justice in our courts.

SELF-GOVERNMENT requires self-rule and a liberated mind; a mind uncontrolled by Uncle Sam. The political process is one thing; politics is another. Because we desire liberty, we must exercise the former and exorcize the latter. The idea that we can elect lawyers and politicians to solve our woes is absurd. We have been indoctrinated by the powers that be to think in the following opposing terms which are in reality “two sides of the same coin”. To think in opposing terms would leave us divided, never able to come to solidarity of truth.

As long as We the People are pitted by right verses left, we will never find the center, which is where liberty

A liberal mind requires conservative thinking, which is where liberty is

A republican government requires a democratic selection of our representatives which is where liberty is

Unalienable rights can only be had by those who have found and live under a Common Law Constitution. George Washington said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” And yet, we have been indoctrinated into believing we can control that fire with politics, which is the epitome of irresponsible actions. George Washington, in his farewell address, left us the following warning: “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people; and, to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” And, it was Thomas Jefferson who pulled back the curtain, unveiling the power behind that fire when he said: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around

them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”

Presently the BAR Association, created and controlled by banksters, control our judicial system. They have corporatized our government at every level; from the most menial village to Washington. They control our legislators; they control our financial system; they robbed our gold and silver; they destroyed our manufacturing base; they taxed us into submission; they drove us into a debt from which it is impossible to recover; they keep us in perpetual war; they stole our press; they control our entertainment and media; and, through those means, they have demoralized us; they control our education; they rewrote our history; they spy on us; they track us; they licensed our liberties; they have taken control of our families; they send swarms of “child protective service workers” to interfere with the rearing of our children; they have incorporated our churches; they rob our elderly in probate courts; they steal our children in family court; they send swarms of code enforcement officers to control our every move; they incarcerate anyone who challenges their authority and claims their God-given right as a sovereign; they have bankrupted our nation; and, they are auctioning off our resources to foreign countries. They have done and continue to do all this because they control our courts; and, thereby, our government. This is the work of the veiled “powers that be”. By taking back our courts, we will take back everything; we will reset the clock to 1789; and, we will then introduce the corrupt “powers that be” to the righteous power of Justice.

CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE 2016 — Now that you have an understanding of what America was meant to be, which is “FREE” and “INDEPENDENT”, you have a duty to yourself and your posterity to act upon this new-found knowledge by sounding the alarm; and, thereby, joining We the People peacefully save America in We the Peoples’ Campaign for Justice.

Through this paper Sheriffs and Marshal are being reminded that an oath to defend the Constitution for the United States of America was taken by each; therefore, each has a duty to act. When a Sheriff or Marshal remains silent or inactive he becomes a co-conspirator in the subversion.

Almost everything you think you know about the government of the United States of America (the Union) and its laws is WRONG. Not just a few things– but rather almost everything!

When the Union of the various states was formed, the American people were NOT illiterate peasants. They understood very well the meanings of the words and terms used in the Constitution; and they knew the difference between the Common Law, Equity (Contract) law and Admiralty law – which are the ONLY types of law allowed by the Constitution. Indeed, the Founders and the people in general understood in such great detail the concepts on which the Union was to be founded that they put us to shame by our ignorance

The Importance of Definitions

In order to communicate more effectively many professions have developed specific vocabularies containing very precise definitions. The vocabulary in every-day English as used by the public changes greatly over relatively short periods of time. Conversely, in order to maintain precise meanings of words, the vocabulary of certain professions is very stable – words tend to retain their meanings over long periods of time. For example, in medicine the phrase “heart attack” is often used by the public. However, for a medical doctor the term “heart attack” means little – instead he would refer to a very specific cardiac event, such as a “myocardial infarction” (death of heart tissue due to insufficient blood and oxygen), an “arrythmia” (irregular heart beat caused by abnormal electrical conduction within the heart), a “ventricular fibrillation” (a specific type of arrythmia – called a “can-of-worms” electrical conduction phenomenon – in the lower-left pumping chamber of the heart which renders the pumping action completely ineffective), or some other specific term. Similarly, a very precise and stable vocabulary has developed for law and the legal profession – what some have called “legalese”. Indeed, in law many definitions have remained fairly static over centuries – and when a new term is used or a new meaning is given to an existing term or word, that term is usually explicitly defined within that new statute. The problems arise when the definitions of specialized terms used by a profession depart from the definitions used by the general public, so that the terms become misleading or totally inaccurate.

For example, the term “client” in ordinary English refers to a customer. However, in law a “client” is a man who is mentallyincompetent to act on his own behalf in court. In ordinary English a “person” refers to a man, woman or child. In law, a “person” is defined as a legal fiction and a corporation. (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States.by John Bouvier. Published 1856.) Likewise in law a “human being” is defined as a “monster”; a “citizen” is defined as an “officer or employee”; the word “must” means “may”; the word “including” is inclusive – meaning it means only the items following the word “include”; and even the term the “United States” has at least very different THREE legal definitions within the U.S. Code and Supreme Court decisions.

Examples:

1.) SHALL – The following court decisions leave no doubt about the legal meaning of “Shall”. “Shall” means MAY – thus, when a statute states that you SHALL do something, it is in truth stating that you MAY or MAY NOT do that something. You are NOT obligated to do it: the choice is yours!

As against the government the word “shall” when used in statutes, is to be construed as “may,”unless a contrary intention is manifest. Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 170, the U.S. Supreme Court

“Shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may” in order to avoid constitutional doubt.George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 N.W.2d 891, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, “shall” will be deemed equivalent to “may” ….Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165 Atlantic 136

2.) AUTOMOBILE and MOTOR VEHICLE – There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle.

“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word automobile.’”; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

“Driver” is defined as a person operating a vehicle in commerce. (that is, being paid for doing so)

“Transportation” is defined as the movement of goods or people in a vehicle engaged in commerce. (A “carrier” is defined as a business engaged in the movement of goods or people in commerce – that is, being paid to do so.)

“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly, an automobileis private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicleis a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or for hire. State and the federal governments have the authority to regulate commerce within their respective jurisdictions because any business (corporation) is a “creature of the state”. Since a corporation is a “legal fiction” created by the state, that corporation’s use of public roads for financial gain may be regulated by the state via legislated statutes. (The legal concept of financial “gain”– often called simply “gain” – is important to understand, as it means profits derived from investments and/or from the labor of other people; it does NOT mean money earned by a man’s own labor) However, under the Common Law (still the primary law in America, superseding all statutes) and numerous Supreme Court rulings, a man traveling upon a public road in a private automobile who is NOT being paid for doing so is exercising his Common Law right to travel; and is NOT subject to any legislated acts (statutes) or any regulations derived therefrom – and therefore is NOT subject to speed limits, car registration, or any of the other regulations derived from legislated statutes (acts). In Common Law, legislated statutes (acts) are NOT Law; these statutes only gain the “force of law” upon the CONSENT of each individual man. Under the Common Law a man commits a crime ONLY if he injures another man or that man’s property (technically, in law a man’s rights and his body are considered his own property); or causes a “disturbance of the peace”. Under the Common Law a man has the unlimited right to enter into a contract or, conversely, to NOT enter into a contract..No contract forced upon a man is considered valid, but instead is considered null and void ab initio (from its beginning). The key factor is that a man may WAIVE some of his rights under the Common Law by entering into a CONTRACT with another party for “consideration” – the mutual exchange of things of approximately equal value. A man’s rights under the Common Law are waived to the extent specified in that particular contract; and the ancient maxim under Commercial Law then applies: “The contract makes the law.” In short, this maxim means that the terms within the contract upon which two parties voluntary agreed become the Law on which disputes regarding that contract will be settled. Applying for and receiving a state-issued “Driver’s License” is such a contract – in which you voluntarily admit that you are a “driver” operating a “motor vehicle” engaged in commerce. Therefore, by obtaining a state-issued driver’s license, you voluntarily confirmed that you are a driver engaged in commerce and thereby submit yourself to the jurisdiction of the state’s statutes and regulations. Of course, even though you may possess a driver’s license (perhaps you are a taxi driver) you may not have been getting paid for transporting people when the police stopped you for “speeding”. However, because you have a “driver’s license”, the PRESUMPTION exists that you are engaged in commerce and therefore subject to statutes and their jurisdiction. And since you probably do NOT rebut this presumption to the court (in a written, sworn affidavit prior to going to court), this unrebutted presumption is accepted as a fact in law by the court. Two maxims of law apply here: “A presumption not rebutted becomes a fact in law.” And “He, who does not object, agrees.” But let us not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The United States v the United States of America

The Constitution was a commercial compact (a CONTRACT in the form of a TRUST) between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment…

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” — Thomas Jefferson

The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution: common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.

Jurisdiction has many facets dealing with the various aspects and modalities of law and justice, i.e., Tort (Civil) law, Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law, Real Property law, Statute law, Criminal Law, and Constitutional law, to name a few of the fields of jurisprudence. The court must be sitting in the proper jurisdiction to render Justice. No court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Most local courts today sit in the jurisdiction of Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law utilizing the

1868 – a privately owned, foreign (British) corporation called the “United States” was created and incorporated in Delaware.

1868 – The 14th Amendment defined a two new legal entities: a “citizen of the United States” and a ‘person’, both subject to the federal government jurisdiction as “agents/officers” and/or “employees” of government. It then stated that no state could infringe or deprive any “U.S. citizen” or “person” of their “privileges and immunities” as U.S. citizens. Of great importance was the use of the terms “”privileges” and “immunities”, as opposed to “rights”. As “persons” or “citizens” (that is, agents or employees) of the private, foreign United States corporation, they had NO rights within that corporation. They possessed only privileges granted to them by that private, foreign corporation called the United States.

Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”

It defined a new legal entity: a “citizen of the United States” as 1.) a person naturalized or born within the United States AND 2.) “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, that is, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Note that BOTH conditions must be fulfilled to be considered a “U.S. citizen”. Consequently, any man claiming the status of a “U.S. citizen” is affirming that he was born or naturalized in the United States AND that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the private corporation called the United States and its statutes and courts, thereby exercising his unlimited right to contract and voluntarily waiving his rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution.

1871 – the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 was passed by Congress, creating a municipal government as a privately owned corporation that took control of D.C. In subsequent statutes in 1882 and later passed by Congress, the federal government became, in fact , the private, foreign corporation called the “United States” incorporated in 1868 and based in Washington, D.C. Further, in subsequent statutes the term “United States” meant ONLY the “District of Columbia”; NOT the various states of the Union under the Constitution.

1913 – the Federal Reserve Central Banks were created.

1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the ‘Trading with the Enemies Act’. This applied only to Federal Citizens, aka, “U.S. citizens” as defined in the 14th Amendment

1933 – President Roosevelt took the gold away from the people, who were not lawfully required to relinquish it, and who then had no money with which to pay their debts. Since 1933, debts are never paid; they are simply “discharged”

March 9, 1933 – ownership (legal title) of all property is in the State; individual ‘ownership’ is only equitable (user) title. Use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. (YIKES! Read that again.)

1933 – President Roosevelt signed HJR 192 June 5, 1933 passed by Congress– since the government had taken the gold, and the people had no money, the government would pay the ‘debts’ for the people, thereby giving them unlimited credit. Whoever has the gold pays the bills. This legislation states that one cannot demand from you a certain form of currency, since any form and all forms of currency are your credit. If they do, they are in breach of Public Policy, PL 73-10. Not only does this insurance policy protect the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason but also it protects the people from damages cause by the Feds.

1938 – The U.S. Supreme Court’s Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), decision made contracts the rule in the courts. This ruling voided the long-standing . Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 41 U. S. 18 (1842) No other law or court decisions prior to 1938 could be cited in future court cases. In effect, Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins made contracts [contract law or UCC-Admiralty Law; NOT the Common Law and the Constitution] the rule in the courts under the Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Act. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law, that is, the Common Law codified as statutes. Since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy, that is private commercial law created through contracts.

1946 – government and court system was lost through the Administrative Procedures Act.

1965 – silver was removed as a means for paying debt, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) became the supreme law of the land concerning the Banking System, the courts were pulled together in Admiralty/Administrative and Civil (contract /commercial /corporate) Law, thereby removing the ‘innocent’ plea under the Common Law, thereby reversing ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty until proven innocent’. Securities replaced substance as collateral for debts; debt instruments with collateral, and accommodation parties could be used instead of money. The courts could uphold the security instruments which depended upon commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance.

The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first section of STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions.” Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. The word “person” is a fictional legal entity. A man (or woman) is real and not a legal fiction and therefore by definition is not a “person”.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS in the STATUTES DO NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN — THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES (legislated acts) !!!

Under the rule of construction“expressio unius est exclusio alterius,”where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person …

A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person …

A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person …

A person commits the offense of fishing if the person …

A person commits the offense of breathing if the person …

Notice that only “persons” can commit these STATE legislature created crimes (called acts or statutes). A crime by definition is an offense committed against the “STATE.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

There is ONLY one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery or involuntary servitude. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th Amendment: (which defined the term “citizen of the United States”) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of great importance is that BOTH conditions must be met in order for a man to be a “citizen of the United States”: (1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]. If you were born in Vermont but never agreed by contract to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, then you can assert that you are a citizen of Vermont, but NOT a citizen of the United States. By doing so, you are NOT subject to any statutes (acts) passed by Congress or any Federal regulations. The “catch” is that when you walk into any court, that court makes the presumption that you are a “citizen of the United States” and therefore subject to that court’s jurisdiction. And under the Common Law, “a presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” – meaning that you must OBJECT in writing (and verbally, often many times) to their presumption and make them prove it, since any presumption challenged (objected to) by a man in a court must be proven by that court, as the “burden of proof” always falls upon the one making the claim. Further, you could assert that you are neither a citizen of any state nor a citizen of the United States – and both that state and the United States would have to prove otherwise.

You become a STATE created statutory “person” by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of “person.” You must hold an “office” within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as “person.” Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God’s Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office of a “person” — YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of “person.”

The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of “person.” Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of “person,” the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “what one creates, one controls.”

A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “person.”It literally means “the mask an actor wears.” The “person” or “persona” is NOT the real man or woman; rather it is an artificial representation; a false image of the man or woman.

The legislature creates the office of “person” which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the “office” of “person,” which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.

Common law

Distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are typically codified in a national constitution. In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the personae of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. In the United States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courtsmay hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Executive Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction also denotes the area over which the executive or legislative powers or laws of a government extend. Similarly, the term also denotes the territory over which a state exerts or claims sovereignty or power (sometimes known as territorial jurisdiction).

In private international law, a supranational organization (e.g. the European Union), a nation-state, or a province (i.e. a subnational “state”) in a federation (as can be found in Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States), may all exercise jurisdiction although the problem of forum shopping is growing.

The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

“To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land.”Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

“Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.” Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

“Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.”Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual.

The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.

“He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land [the Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 (1905)

We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Since it was the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another U.S. Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

“..Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier [corporation] in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.” Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege.” We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

and…

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

and…

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of

1938 – Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins made contracts the rule in the courts – Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years, Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), which was a very similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Swift v Tyson was that in any case of this type, the Court would judge the case on Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. Further, since the Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins 1938 ruling, NO other law (or Supreme Court ruling) prior to 1938 can be cited in cases in court.

You must realise that the Court you are standing in is an Admiralty/Law Merchant Court under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which recognizes only two classes of entities, “Creditors” and “Debtors.”, dealing only in the terms and conditions of “Contractual Obligations.” It is NOT a Constitutional Court of proper jurisdiction to secure the Rights of Sovereign Citizens.

YOU MUST ESTABLISH THE PROPER JURISDICTION!

Common law

Distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are typically codified in a national constitution. In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the personae of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits of equity where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. [NOTE: ONLY a Common Law court can be a “court of record“ and thus a court of general jurisdiction.] In the United States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of special or limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens. These controversies between states or between people from different states are called “jurisdictional diversity” cases and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with ayellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!

“The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.” (Note – of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)

A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:

“Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy.” – 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

“Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces.”

From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:

“Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides………..use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power.”

The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that its use indicates that our Constitutional Republic no longer exists. Our system of law was changed without the public’s knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God’s Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. Formerly, you were able to own property (allodial title) and to do whatever you wished on that property, with no need for any licenses or to pay property taxes. Since 1933 people do NOT own their property, but rather possess “equitable title” which grants them the “right of use” of that property, but NOT true ownership. Thus, they are no longer the true owners, but are legally considered tenants on the land. If you still think you own your property, stop paying taxes – and soon thereafter, your home and property will be seized by the government under the “prize law” under Admiralty jurisdiction.

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership’ is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” – Senate Document No. 43, “Contracts payable in Gold” written in 1933.

By our allowing these military flags to fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you’ll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law: the Common Law (the “law of the land”), Equity Law (legislated acts; as statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances, by-laws, etc.) and Admiralty Law (the “law of the sea”; “Law Merchant”; “Maritime-Admiralty Law”; the “Law of Commerce”; or “commercial law”). The familiar “Stars and Stripes” flag is NOT the official U.S. flag. Indeed, before World War 2, most public and private buildings within a state flew ONLY their state flag. Each state considered itself a “sovereign nation” with respect to the other states and with respect to the United States – and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this as a fact in law. Therefore, for a state-owned building to fly a U.S. flag would mean that it had surrendered its sovereignty and was now under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Only Federal buildings under civilian control, such as the Post Office, flew the “U.S. Civil Flag of Peacetime”, most notable for its vertical stripes and its blue stars on a white field (background) This U.S. Civil Flag of Peacetime (pictured immediately below) is the true official flag of the United States of America.

Most Americans are unaware of this fact; and those who are aware believe it to be meaningless. However, under U.S. and international Maritime law, the “Law of the Flag” (which is a legal concept first developed under Maritime-Admiralty Law) is still of major legal importance, since the flag you display signals the nation under whose legal jurisdiction you are governed, on land and, most importantly, on a ship at sea. Operating a ship at sea using an unauthorized flag (not registered with a particular nation) was a most serious offense; it was called a “false flag” or “false colors” or not showing your “true colors”. If a ship was caught flying a “false flag”, the ship and its cargo were subject to confiscation and its captain (and possibly even its crew) subject to the death penalty by an Admiralty court hearing issuing a “summary judgment” – no trial by jury. Only two issues were considered: the fact that the ship flew a “false flag” and whether the captain possessed the proper Certificate of Registration from that nation authorizing him to fly that flag. That ship and its captain (and often its crew) were thereby considered “outlaws”, meaning that they were “outside the law” and therefore had forfeited all their rights and legal protections under the law. So-called “pirates” were an example of such “outlaws”.

The following is a legal definition of the term Law of the Flag.

“…The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it [that is, if heconsents], there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law.” – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

Don’t be misled by the fact they are talking about the sea, and presume that the “law of the flag” does not apply on land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come onto land. Next a court case:

“Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all.” – Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

When you walk into a court and see this flag (with yellow fringe) you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king, the people are no longer sovereign. You’re probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait, there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here’s how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law governs contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that’s what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

“The committee also alluded to “the great force” of “the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution….” – Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

“This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note – remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land.” — Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851) U.S. Supreme Court

And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state’s Constitution, said:

“Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.” — Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review of AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” — Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer:

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution…” “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. …And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable.” — Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

“I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.”

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” — Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag.When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’ll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let’s say you get a seat belt ticket. What law did you violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though here, the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn’t. In a contractboth parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.

All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789.

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Judiciary Act of 1789gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” — Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with theyellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American’s aren’t aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the Constitution does NOT apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, he will probably state that it is statutory law and he has “statutory jurisdiction”. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don’t exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing its procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!

The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder, etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It’s up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king’s government (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don’t it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again, where is the injured party or parties? – There are NO injured parties and thus this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:

“Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power “to declare war,” “to raise and support armies,” “to provide and maintain a navy,” and to call forth the militia to “repel invasions.” Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that “the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion.” Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?…. Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads.” — Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen [of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION]..

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS.” (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188; (1938) In short, in Erie RR v Tompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that henceforth within the United States, ALL crimes would be considered COMMERCIAL crimes – that is, subject to Contract Law (Commercial Law; Maritime-Admiralty); and NOT to the Common Law, thereby voiding the Constitution and all legal precedence since Colonial times. Further, under Commercial Law, rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution were OPTIONAL upon the courts (“privileges” that the court may or may not see fit to grant) – so a 12-person “trial by jury” under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution was no longer required. A judge could decide on his own whether to issue a “summary judgment” upon a defendant with no trial by jury; or he could decide to offer a defendant a “jury trial” (composed of as few jurors as the judge wished; thus NOT a true “trial by jury” of 12 people; or the judge could offer the defendant a “jury trial”, but any “verdict” of this jury was no longer lawfully binding on the judge, but instead was considered only an “advisory opinion” to the judge, which the judge could accept or reject as he wished. Thus, if a man was found “not guilty” by the jury in a “jury trial” under Commercial Law, the judge legally could ignore the jury’s verdict and declare that man “guilty”. To repeat, since the 1938 Erie RR v Tompkins case, ALL crimes and offences in the United States are considered to be “commercial crimes” in relation to the 1933 Bankruptcy Act of the United States and under which ALL U.S. citizens are considered “debtors” as surety for the debt owed by the U.S. government to foreign banks.

On May 18, 1951 during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C., the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC’s signature product. One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions). By 1968, the U.S. government, 49 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands had enacted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) — the only exception being Louisiana. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, judges will often refer to it as “Statutory Jurisdiction”.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen [of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION]..

Please read carefully the following definition regarding Social Security to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:

“Contribution: Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of “contribution,” a tort-feasor [wrong doer] against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor [wrong doer] whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (Note – tortfeasor means wrong doer; what did you do to be defined as a wrong doer???) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer’s share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. — (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean? Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy: In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it says that these declared war powers did NOT affect citizens of the United States:

“Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States of the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”[thus: the PEOPLE of America became the “alien enemy”]

Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying. Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the following Congressional quote:

“My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness. . . As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Dies, March 15, 1933

Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold. Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven billion in gold in the whole world, and we had about four billion. To keep from being hung by the American public they obeyed the banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are. In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters, and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11 [bankruptcy]. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government.” — Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, 1933

The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters. In return, the nation’s 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven. I have two papers that have circulated the country on this subject. Remember Jesus said “money is the root of all evil” The Congress of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their asses. Read the following Congressional quotes:

“I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation–they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation–to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Patman, March 13, 1933

“That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Long, March 11, 1933

What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our children’s fate, but worst of all, he declared War on the American People. Remember the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act? He declared emergency powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work)

The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:

“In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”

“Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.”

Here is the legal phrase ”subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

“As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES (emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” – United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:

“I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death….But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers.” – Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933

The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this, so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency….Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years [since 1917], freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency….from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.” – Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read the following: In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you’ll find the following codification of the Emergency War Powers:

“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed.” – (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)

So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions: The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as:

One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. – 1 Kent 73.

He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; -1 B. & P.163.

Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king’s special favor, during time of war; – 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we’ve been under a declared state of war since October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States citizen.]

“The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as: Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as “alien enemy” within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship.” – Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

“By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an `alien enemy’ as if he were born there.” – Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.

Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not, it gets worse. I have established that war has been declared against the American people and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government were responsible for Congress’ actions, because Congress was there in their proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque? Well, read the following:

Letter of Marque: A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914.

Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of Marque, read the following:

“The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended, in strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress “to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” — Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.

Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances, power was divided between the three branches of government. To do anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government. I’m not even talking about the obvious, which we have already covered, read the following:

“The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917.” — Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.

How about Clinton’s new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds un-Constitutional to me, but read on.

“The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a)”

How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters or the courts or Congress. I tell you how, under martial law, under the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:

“…And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers…” — (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395

While former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen was simultaneously the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States:

Submitted January 28

“Lloyd Bentsen, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of theInternational Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the African Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development Fund; and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.” — Presidential Documents, February 1, 1993.

At the same time, Bentsen was the Secretary of Treasury. Gee, I don’t know, this sounds like a conflict of entrust and interest to me, how about you? Also, Congress is the only one under the Constitution able to appropriate money.

How about a few months ago when Secretary of Treasury Rubin sent hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to Mexico, without Congress’ approval. Secretary of Treasury Rubin previously had been president of the bank that made the loans to Mexico. Later, when he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, he had the Treasury Mexico’s interest on its debt to his bank with taxpayers money. Again, sounds like a conflict of interest (entrust) to me.

“Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes of this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions under which licenses may be granted by or through such officers or agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and the decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting, denial or other disposition of an application or license shall be final.” — Section 7, Title 12U.S.C. Banks and Banking

Do the issues I have brought up sound like this is a Constitutional government to you? I have not covered the main nexus, the money. I didn’t make up this information; it is the government’s own documents and legal definitions taken from their dictionaries. I wish the hard working Americans in the government that are loyal to an American Republic could read this, the more that know the truth the better.

In Which Court Do You Practice Law?

It is very important to appreciate the fact that District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are NOT the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”). The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutional judicial courts that originate in Article IIIof the U.S. Constitution. The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are territorial tribunals that originate in

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Territory Clause); OR legislative (administrative) courts, that originate in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

Paul Mitchell’s opening brief to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Gilbertson in

USA v. Gilbertson in District Courts of the United States, DCUS – Minneapolis #4-96-65” cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. Mitchell’s opening brief in

Mitchell cites, for example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories only; not in the states. Thus the USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedingsdominate.

For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC.

“… the United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate. … It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. … The United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a State.”in re Merriam’s Estate, 36 NE 505, 506 22.

The Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was never expressly abolished inside the several States by any Act(s) of Congress, or by any rule changes:

The Act of June 25, 1948, expressly changed the name of the “District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” to “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”, but only in the District of Columbia [underlines and bold added]. See § 32(b) in said Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991.

However, no such comprehensive amendments were ever enacted for statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS located within the several States of the Union.

39 of the Act of June 25, 1948, contained an explicit “Schedule of Laws Repealed,” and the legislative history of this Act is equally explicit:

This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 709]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

In this bill we have set up a new section of the bill … listing chronologically all of the laws which we repeal.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 731]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 likewise did not abolish the Article III DCUS inside the several States. See 62 Stat. 895. For example, compare the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; the Sherman Act; and the Securities and Exchange Acts.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise never repealed by

In effect, 28 U.S.C. 132 appears to have broadcasted an extra legislative tribunal from the federal Territories into the several States of the Union, but without expressly abolishing the constitutional

7(d) The abrogation clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) cannot retroactively amend federal statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”):

This honorable Court of Appeals will please take formal judicial Notice of Appellant’s proper and timely challenge now filed in this appeal against 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), for violating the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the ex post facto prohibition.

See legislative history of 1988 amendments, Rep. Kastenmeier: “unwise and potentially unconstitutional”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “separation of powers” as follows:

… [A] power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested by statute in another department or agency.

However, the high Court in that case erred by defining “Party” in Article III to mean Plaintiff only. This definition contradicts the definition of “Party” as found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) (“Party” embraces both plaintiffs and defendants).

Accordingly, an FRCP amendment effective October 20, 1949, was strictly limited to those rules and could never have altered any existing federal statutes, whether retroactively or otherwise. See further discussion at 7(e)infra.

In particular, see Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 58 S.Ct. 543, 82 L.Ed. 748 (1938) (term “District Courts of the United States” in its historic and proper sense); Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991, § 2(b) (“continuations of existing law”) and § 9 (“the jurisdiction of district courts of the United States”).

7(e) The Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., is vague and deceptive in several of its key provisions and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

By way of introduction, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the instant case, nor do any of the courts situated in any of the federal Territories or Possessions.

California is neither a United States Territory acquired under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (“4:3:2”), nor is it an enclave acquired under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (“1:8:17”) in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”).

It is clear from the original Statute at Large quoted above (60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39) that the DCUS is the only federal court with original jurisdiction competent to hear claims arising under the Lanham Act, when the venue is a judicial district of California (or any other State of the Union, for that matter). See 28 U.S.C. 84(b).

The DCUS and the USDC are decidedly not one and the same.

Appellant now supplies further conclusive proof.

The Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., contains provisions deliberately written and implemented to foster the false and misleading conclusion that ‑‑ in all matters arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States ‑‑ these two courts are synonymous and identical in all respects whatsoever. See Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (“3:2:1”) and the Supremacy Clause in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Appellant honestly trembles at the mere thought of challenging a comprehensive revision, codification, and enactment of all laws that have governed the conduct of the federal courts in this great nation for 54 years.

However, a careful review of the relevant evidence, as found in various sections of Title 28, U.S.C., has rendered that challenge necessary and inevitable.

That careful review now follows:

It is now abundantly evident to Appellant, and Appellant hereby offers to prove, that:

(1) the Article IIIDCUS inside the several States were never expressly abolished by Congress;

(2) Congress knows how to abolish federal courts when it intends to do so; and,

(3) the Act of June 25, 1948, attempted fraudulently to conceal the DCUS, and to create the false impressions that they had been re‑defined as, replaced by, and/or rendered synonymous with, the USDC.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are decidedly not favored. See U.S. v. United Continental Tuna, 425 U.S. 164, 168 (1976), for example.

As of this writing, Appellant has assembled an exhaustive list of all statutes in Title 28 that expressly mention either the USDC, the DCUS, or both. For the convenience and edification of all, Appellant now advises this honorable Court, and all interested parties, that the results of this research have been published at Internet URL’s:

In any Act of Congress, words importing the plural include the singular, and words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things. See 1 U.S.C. 1.

Therefore, the rules of statutory construction strictly bar intermingling of “United States District Courts” with “District Courts of the United States”. Confer also at “Noscitur a sociis” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

On the other hand, the term “district courts” [sic] does embrace both the DCUS and the USDC, since there appears to be a hierarchical relationship between this term and the courts constituted by Chapter 5 of Title 28. See 28 U.S.C. 451.

This Court is respectfully requested to recognize, and to take formal judicial notice, that the ex post facto restriction in the U.S. Constitution (“1:9:3”) emphatically bars Congress from retroactively re-defining the meaning of “district courts of the United States” as that term was used in all federal legislation prior to June 25, 1948 A.D. See, in particular, the Lanham Act at

Appellant’s Immunity from ex post facto legislation is a fundamental Right. See the Privileges and Immunities Clause

(“4:2:1”). Federal copyright and trademark laws protect Appellant’s Rights uniformly in every State of the Union.

7(f) The Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was never expressly abolished inside the several States by any Act(s) of Congress, or by any rule changes:

The Act of June 25, 1948, expressly changed the name of the “District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” to “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”, but only in the District of Columbia [underlines and bold added]. See § 32(b) in said Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991.

However, no such comprehensive amendments were ever enacted for statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS located within the several States of the Union.

39 of the Act of June 25, 1948, contained an explicit “Schedule of Laws Repealed,” and the legislative history of this Act is equally explicit:

This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 709]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

In this bill we have set up a new section of the bill … listing chronologically all of the laws which we repeal.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 731]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 likewise did not abolish the Article III DCUS inside the several States. See 62 Stat. 895. For example, compare the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; the Sherman Act; and the Securities and Exchange Acts.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise never repealed by

In effect, 28 U.S.C. 132 appears to have broadcasted an extra legislative tribunal from the federal Territories into the several States of the Union, but without expressly abolishing the constitutionalArticle III DCUS inside those States.

For example, see all predecessor statutes of 28 U.S.C. 132 for its territorial origins, i.e. § 641 of Title 48, U.S.C, 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions.

Plaintiff has carefully reviewed the history of amendments to this latter statute [60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39], and believes He is legally correct to conclude that the federal court with original jurisdiction of Lanham Act claims has remained unchanged in California and is still the constitutional Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”), and not the legislative

A rules amendment effective December 29, 1948, amended the title “Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States” to read “Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts” [underlines and bold added].

And, a rules amendment effective October 20, 1949, substituted the words “United States district courts” for the words “district courts of the United States” throughout the FRCP.

However, the exact scope of these substitutions was limited to the FRCP and could not have affected any federal statutes. See Notes to FRCP Rule 1.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise unaffected by these rule changes, and could not have been affected by these rule changes, notwithstanding the abrogation clause supra.

7(g) In the opinions of recognized constitutional scholars, such as Justice Story, the Congress has affirmative obligations to create and to maintain constitutional district courts, proceeding in judicial mode.

The reasons for this proposition are simple, if not immediately obvious:

The original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is quite limited under Article III, as compared to its appellate jurisdiction unde

Cases that arise under the Supremacy Clause, as mirrored by 3:2:1 and by 28 U.S.C. 1331, would need to originate first in an inferiorconstitutional court, before those cases could ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

The exact same argument can be extended to this Court’s appellate jurisdiction: specifically, civil litigation under the Lanham Act must first originate in an inferior constitutional court, before such a case could ever reach the Ninth Circuit on appeal! In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit must proceed in constitutional mode.

The conclusion is inescapable, therefore, that Congress must first create constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode, and then it must also perpetuate them, in order to satisfy Article III and the

To do otherwise would constitute a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which mandates due process of law (among other things). This mandate is also embodied in numerous provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a United States treaty rendered supreme Law by the Supremacy Clause. See Article 14 in that Covenant, for example.

The entire thrust of that Covenant is to guarantee independent, impartial and qualified judicial officers presiding upon courts of competent jurisdiction (and not Star Chambers, or other tribunals where summary proceedings are the norm, and where due process is not a fundamental Right (read “shall”) but a privilege granted at the discretion of those tribunals (read “may”)).

In pari materia, compare the language in Rules 201(c) and 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FREv”): the former is discretionary (“may”); the latter is mandatory (“shall”). Confer at “Fundamental right” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (analogous to “shall”).

(Incidentally, Appellant is protesting the Seventh Edition of Black’s, because it has conspicuously omitted any definition of the term “United States” ‑‑ a term which figures prominently throughout federal laws and throughout the U.S. Constitution!)

7(h) Appellant therefore asserts a fundamental Right to due process of law, which necessarily mandates courts of competent jurisdiction in the first instance. Within the 50 States of the Union, these are the DCUS and only the DCUS.

The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutionalcourts vested by law with competent jurisdiction over controversies arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to the federal district courts must be strictly construed [cites 5(c)supra].

Appellant argues that statutes granting appellate jurisdiction must be strictly construed as well.

Inside the several States of the Union, the United States District Courts (“USDC”) are not constitutional courts vested by law with original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies that arise under the Lanham Act. Confer at “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s Sixth.

Inside the several States of the Union, the courts vested by law with competent, original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies that arise under the Lanham Act are the DCUS.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to these courts have used language and terminology that enjoy a well established historic meaning. See Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 205 (1938) (the term DCUS in its historic and proper sense). Confer at “Noscitur a sociis” in Black’s Sixth.

Within California State, therefore, the DCUS is the only federal court with competent jurisdiction to originate the instant case.

7(i) Federal municipal law cannot be usurped to switch the instant proceedings from constitutional mode to legislative mode.

The 50 States of the Union are not “United States Districts” [sic]; they are judicial districts! Federal municipal law does not operate, of its own force, inside those judicial districts. See 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 (the federal zone).

Even though the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are likewise judicial districts, federal municipal law can operate there because neither is a Union State. 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 119.

Nevertheless, federal municipal law is likewise bound by all pertinent restrictions in the U.S. Constitution, because the U.S. Constitution was expressly extended into D.C. in 1871, and into all federal Territories in 1873. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; 18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively (hereinafter “extension statutes”).

In this context, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled:

“It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and even predates it.”Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970)

Appellant alleges that the nomenclature “United States District” [sic], as found on the caption pages of all federal court orders today, is now being used to trigger legislative mode without adequate notice to litigants, in violation of the

This dubious mechanism is called “silent judicial notice” [sic] ‑‑ surely a misnomer, if ever there was one. It would be entirely more accurate to call it “silent legislative notice”, since this practice is a deceptive device now rampant within legislative courts, and the DCUS are currently vacant.

But, has Congress been silent, or merely vague?

7(j) The extension statutes are monumentally important, in light of highly successful efforts by the federal government, since the year 1866 A.D., to create an absolute legislative democracy within the several States of the Union.

The Guarantee Clause does not require the United States to guarantee a Republic Form of government to itself, but only to the 50 States.

Strictly speaking, Congress was free to create such a democracy, but only within the federal zone, and not within the State zone. See 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. The territorial reach of such a democracy is necessarily limited to the federal zone, and not beyond. See also the 1866 Civil Rights Act (an early example of federal municipal law) and IRC 3121(e).

Legally speaking, the population of federal citizens now “residing” within the several States of the Union is an absolute legislative democracy, by Congressional intent. Confer at “Federal citizenship” in Black’s Sixth.

Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45

(1885). In this context, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is correctly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acquiesced to this questionable legislativeintent. Under the Downes Doctrine, the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States that are united by, and under, it. See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. This Doctrine is demonstrably specious, because it is contrary to Law.

Another deceptive device, perhaps?

The Downes Doctrine was later extended in the case of Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), in which the high Court ruled that the guaranties [sic] of the U.S. Constitution extend into the federal zone only as Congress makes those guaranties applicable ‑‑ by enacting federal statutes. Under this Doctrine, the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution would not extend into the federal zone without specific legislative action.

This latter presumption is conclusively rebutted by the extension statutes, however. Clearly, all guarantees in the U.S. Constitution have already been expressly extended into D.C. and into all federal Territories, without exception, effectively destroying the Downes Doctrine 30 years before the fact.

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse for violating the Law.

It would only compound the ubiquitous errors that have already been made under the Downes Doctrine to treat the States of the Union as federal Territories in any manner whatsoever, least of all by convening territorial courts inside those States.

In this context, therefore, legislative tribunals like the USDC are entirely out of place, and wholly lacking jurisdiction, to entertain any cases that arise under the Lanham Act when States of the Union are the “judicial districts” where the violations are alleged to have occurred.

For now, California is a judicial district, not a legislative district, and original jurisdiction over such cases is clearly vested in courts specifically created to exercise the judicial Power of the United States.

This latter phrase is controlling, because it introduces Article III and forms the basis for all Clauses that Article contains.

Accordingly, for all of the substantive reasons stated above, the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) still remain the only federal courts with original jurisdiction legally competent to hear cases arising under the Lanham Act, when violations of that Act are alleged to have occurred inside States of the Union and across State lines.

7(k) Vagueness, once fully documented wherever it occurs, will be shown to conflict directly with the stated legislative intent of the Act of June 25, 1948.

The stated legislative intent of that Act is clear enough: “The provisions of title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, of the United States Code, set out in section 1 of this Act, … shall be construed as continuations of existing law …” [bold emphasis added].

Moreover, “No loss of rights, interruption of jurisdiction, or prejudice to matters pending in any of such courts on the effective date of this Act shall result from its enactment.” [bold emphasis added]

In good faith, Appellant constructs these Miscellaneous Provisions to read: “No loss of Rights and no interruption of jurisdiction shall result from its enactment.”

What, then, is meant by the term “existing law”?

If Congress had intended to abolish the DCUS, they would (and they should) have said so. The period between 1789 A.D. and 1948 A.D. spans 159 years of judicial history! Hiding a herd of elephants under a rug would be easier than hiding the DCUS under a pretense.

To reiterate these all important points: Statutes granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Repeals by implication (or magic carpets) are decidedly not favored. The law of jurisdiction is fundamental law. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law; without it, courts cannot proceed at all in any cause. Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil Co., __ U.S. __ (1999), No. 98‑470, May 17, 1999 A.D.

In 1946 A.D., two years before the Act of June 25, 1948, the Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction on the several DCUS. These courts are Article IIIconstitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode. Inside the several States of the Union, the DCUS are the only federal courts with original jurisdiction to hear cases that arise under the Lanham Act.

To the extent that the Act of June 25, 1948, was written and enacted to justify or otherwise foster the notion that all violations of Congressional acts predating that year can now be prosecuted in the USDC ‑‑ a legislative court that was broadcasted from the federal Territories into the several (48) States on that date ‑‑ then that Act is demonstrably unconstitutional for at least four reasons:

(3) it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and elsewhere; and,

(4) it violates the well established principle that statutes granting original jurisdiction to federal courts must be strictly construed.

Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, summed it up nicely as follows:

In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name. While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack.

[Discussion of “Legislative Court”]

[in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution]

[New York, MacMillan Publishing Company (1986)]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

7(l) There are essential facts in this case which were either too subtle, or too voluminous, for the Magistrate and Judge Shubb to appreciate fully; neither has read and understood the whole docket file. Appellant now highlights these essential facts, to ensure that they are not also overlooked by this honorable Court:

(1) On August 2, 1998 A.D., certain Defendants defaulted in response to Appellant’s DEMANDS FOR AUTHORIZATION (Exhibit “K”), thus satisfying the 3-year statute of limitations in the Copyright Act. Others defaulted after that date.

(2) The acts of removing Appellant’s README file, containing His SHAREWARE POLICY, were acts of fraudulent concealment (“active misconduct”) and false designation of origin that resulted in tolling all pertinent statutes of limitation.

(3) Withholding the identities of subscribers suspected of infringing Appellant’s exclusive copyrights was also an act of fraudulent concealment, making it impossible for the district court to assess actual damages. See Exhibit “J”.

(4) Withholding the computer activity logs of ISP’s, in response to valid SUBPOENA’s issued under

17 U.S.C. 512(h), was tantamount to further fraudulent concealment and probable cause for contempt of court, and sanctions.

(5) Counterfeits of the subject book remain on the Internet to this day, e.g. at Internet domain 9X.TC, proving conclusively that the threat of continuing wrong is substantial, premeditated and malicious. See Taylor supra.

(6) Further retaliations against Appellant, e.g. denial of service attacks on Appellant’s website, physical assault and breach of the contract to serve SUMMONSES, justify immediate relief in the form of preliminary injunctions during pendency of this action

(7) Appellant’s primary emphasis in preparing the Initial COMPLAINT was to organize the electronic evidence, to preserve it intact, and to make it readily accessible via the Internet and its most popular search engines, e.g. the View | Source option in Microsoft Internet Explorer.

(8) Printing hard copies of electronic evidence, particularly files coded in HTML, results in hiding the underlying markup codes where crucial evidence of hyperlinks and associated domains is to be found.

(9) Appellant’s hard copy files contain many additional documents which Appellant has not had time to enter and which should be entered into evidence in the district court, e.g. the written amnesty offers that were mailed to certain suspects in the summer of 1999 A.D.

Covenant: “The intent of this chapter is … to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trademarks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.”

(11) Appellant’s Common Law Rights are expressly reserved by the Seventh and Tenth Amendments, the terms of which Congress is barred from re-defining. Thus, to suggest that Congress has abolished common law copyrights necessarily results in infringing Rights guaranteed by those Amendments, in this case. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).

(12) To refer to any of the issues discussed above as “frivolous” is an obnoxious insult to Appellant. Matters that arise under the Supremacy Clause are never frivolous. Why would State and federal laws impose solemn oaths of office on all public officials, if the State and Federal Constitutions were frivolous? Reductio ad absurdum.

Do you have any other cases pending in this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case.

Answer: No

Have you filed any previous cases which have been decided by this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case.

Answer: No

For prisoners, did you exhaust all administrative remedies for each claim prior to filing your complaint in the district court?

Answer: (not applicable in this civil case)

The 4 United States: Which One Are We Talking About?

Are you a Citizen, a National, a Resident Alien, or Non-Resident Alien

“United States” as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp

(1) United States* or U.S.* (first meaning)

The name of the sovereign Nation, occupying the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

(2) United States** or U.S.** (second meaning)

The federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority.

The collective name for the States united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America.

28 U.S.C. 1603(a)(3) states as follows:

(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c) and (d) of this title ….

Section 1332(d). The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Examples of Two Definitions

of the term “United States” in 26 U.S.C.

First Definition

26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9):

(9) United States. — The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

Second Definition

26 U.S.C. 4612(a)(4)(A):

In general. — The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

[emphasis added]

The Supreme Court stated in Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellsey, 6 U.S. 445, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed 332, that the District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore, it is apparent that the meaning of the term “States” in the first definition abovecan only mean the territories and possessions belonging to the “United States”, because of the specific mention of the District of Columbia and the specific absence of the 50 States (inclusio unius est exclusio alterius). The District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution (see Hepburn supra). Therefore, the 50 States are specifically excluded from this first definition of the term “United States”.

Congress has no problem naming the “50 States” when it is legislating for them, so, in the second definition of the term “United States” above, Congress expressly mentions them, and there is no misunderstanding. If a statute in 26 U.S.C. does not have a special “word of art” definition for the term “United States”, then the First Definition of the term “United States” is always used (see above) because of the general nature of that term as defined by Congress.

When citizens or residents of the first “United States” are without the geographical area of this first “United States”, their “compensation for personal services actually rendered” is defined as “foreign earned income” in 26 U.S.C., Section 911(b) and 911(d)(2), as follows:

911(b) Foreign Earned Income. — …

(d)(2) Earned Income. —

(A) In general. — The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.

A citizen or resident of the first “United States” does not pay a tax on his “compensation for personal services actually rendered” while residing outside of the first “United States”, because Congress has exempted all such compensation from taxation under 26 U.S.C., Section 911(a)(1), which reads as follows:

911(a) Exclusion from Gross Income. — … [T]here shall be excluded from the gross income of such individual, and exempt from taxation … (1) the foreign earned income of such individual ….

When residing without (outside) this “United States”, the citizen or resident of this “United States” pays no tax on “foreign earned income”, but is required to file a return, claiming the exemption (see IRS Form 2555).

26 C.F.R., Section 871-13(c) allows this citizen to abandon his citizenship or residence in the “United States” by residing elsewhere.

United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States. It includes the states4, [Puerto Rico, Guam, Mariana Islands, etc.] the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States, the territorial waters of the United States, the air space over the United States, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law ….

None of the 50 united Statescomes under the sovereignty of the “United States”, and subsection (h) defines the 50 States united by the Constitution as “foreign countries”:

Foreign country. The term “foreign country” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.

[26 C.F.R. 1.911-2(h)]

Allof the 50 States are foreign with respect to each other and are under the sovereignty of their respective Legislatures, except where a power has been expressly delegated to Congress. The Citizens of each Union State are foreigners and aliens with respect to another Union State, unless they establish a residence therein under the laws of that Union State. Otherwise, they are nonresident aliens with respect to all the other Union States.

General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of … every married individual … who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013 ….

The regulations promulgated to explain 26 U.S.C., Section 1 are found in 26 C.F.R., Section 1.1-1, and state in pertinent part:

General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

And, for declarations made under the penalties of perjury, the statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746 separately defines declarations made WITHIN and WITHOUT the “United States” as follows:

“If executed WITHOUT the United States: I declare … under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.”

“If executed WITHIN the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare … that the foregoing is true and correct.”

“A democracy that recognizes only manmade laws perforce obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right. A Ticket to Liberty, by Lori Jacques, November 1990 edition, page 146

[emphasis added]

In the constitutional Republic, however, the rights of individuals are supreme. Individuals delegate their sovereignty to a written contract, called a constitution, which empowers government to hire public servants to write laws primarily for the benefit of individuals. The corporations occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives are to maximize the enjoyment of individual rights, and to facilitate the fulfillment of individual responsibilities. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of sovereign individuals, who exercise their power in three arenas: the voting booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury. Without a jury verdict of “guilty”, for example, no law can be enforced and no penalty exacted. The behavior of public servants is tightly restrained by contractual terms, as found in the written U.S. Constitution. Statutes and case law are created primarily to limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power.

Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, “No fiction can make a natural born subject.” Milvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. Author and scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows:

As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United States**, the meaning is clear that state citizens are not subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United States**. Furthermore, there is not the slightest intimation in the Constitution which created the “United States” as a political entity that the “United States” is sovereign over its creators.

A Ticket to Liberty by Lori Jacques, Nov. 1990, p. 32]

Accordingly, if you choose to investigate the matter, you will find a very large body of legal literature which cites another fiction, the so-called 14th Amendment, from which the federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States**, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States** and of the State wherein they reside.

[United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]

[emphasis added]

A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety which is lost on many people who read it for the first time. The citizens it defines are second class citizens because the “c” is lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it defines. Note how the amendment defines “citizens of the United States**” and “citizens of the State wherein they reside”! It is just uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) which promulgates Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Can it be that this amendment had something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes and other means? Yes, it most certainly did. IRC section 1 is the section which imposes income taxes. The corresponding section of the CFR defines who is a “citizen” as follows:

Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

[26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]

Notice the use of the term “its jurisdiction”. This leaves no doubt that the “United States**” is a singular entity in this context. In other words, it is the federal zone. Do we dare to speculate why the so-called 14th Amendment was written instead with the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof“? Is this another case of deliberate ambiguity? You be the judge.

Not only did this so-called “amendment” fail to specify which meaning of the term “United States” was being used; like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15,641 et seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when their Legislatures did so. “I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.” State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941 (1975). The Utah Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history of the 14th Amendment’s “adoption” in the case of Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).

A great deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has been assembled into computer files by Richard McDonald, whose mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California Republic (not “CA”). He requests that ZIP codes not be used on his incoming mail (use the foreign address format found in USPS Publication 221 instead).

Richard McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called 14th Amendment. He documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States** . A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is a subject of Congress.

The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a Common Law Right which simply cannot be taxed, because governments cannot tax the exercise of a right, ever.

The case of U.S. v. Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and federal citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the “void for vagueness” doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC. On the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows:

We have in our political system a government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States** and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter-House Cases

[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

[emphasis added]

The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter House Cases, which examined the so-called 14th Amendment in depth. An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following:

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36]

[21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]

[emphasis added]

A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro v. Jordan, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California almost fifty years later. Notice, in particular, how the California Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:

Thatthere is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other iswell established by the decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases upon the subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.

[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]

[affirmed 278 U.S. 123 (1928)]

[emphasis added]

The Slaughter House Cases are quite important to the issue of citizenship, but the pivotal case on the subject is the famous Dred Scott decision, decided in 1856, prior to the Civil War. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote one of the longest decisions in the entire history of American jurisprudence. In arriving at their understanding of the precise meaning of Citizenship, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, the high Court left no stone unturned in their search for relevant law:

We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself: we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word “citizen” and the word “people.”

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

In the fundamental law, the notion of a “citizen of the United States” simply did not exist before the 14th Amendment; at best, this notion is a fiction within a fiction. In discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California Supreme Court put it rather bluntly when it ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States”:

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.

[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]

[emphasis added]

This decision has never been overturned!

What is the proper construction and common understanding of the term “Citizen of the United States” as used in the original U.S. Constitution, before the so-called 14th Amendment? This is an important question, because this status is still a qualification for the federal offices of Senator, Representative and President.

No Person can be a Representative unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for seven years (1:2:2); no Person can be a Senator unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for nine years (1:3:3); no Person can be President unless he is a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5).

If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have been no elections for Representatives to Congress for at least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible to be a Senator for nine years after its adoption.

Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available on Richard McDonald’s electronic bulletin board system (“BBS”), explains away the problem very simply as follows:

The language employed by the convention was less careful than that which had been used by Congress in July of the same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Congress had made the qualification rest upon citizenship of “one of the United States***,” and this is doubtless the intent of the convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have meant anything else.

[Studies in Constitutional Law:]

[A Treatise on American Citizenship]

[by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]

[emphasis added]

This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter and to the spirit of that law. In describing the eligibility for “representatives” to serve in the general assembly for the Northwest Territory, the critical passage from that Ordinance reads as follows:

… Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States*** three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; ….

[Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787]

[The Confederate Congress]

[emphasis added]

Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S. Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for the Respondent filed in the case of People v. De La Guerra, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1870. The following long passage elaborates the true meaning of the Constitutional qualifications for the federal offices of President and Representative:

As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

Indeed, this was the same exact understanding that was reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott. There, the high Court clearly reinforced the sovereign status of Citizens of the several States. The sovereigns are the Union State Citizens, i.e. the Citizens of the States United:

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

Thus, the phrase “Citizen of the United States” as found in the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase “Citizen of one of the United States***”, i.e., a Union State Citizen. This simple explanation will help to cut through the mountain of propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers. Federal citizens were not even contemplated as such when the organic U.S. Constitution was first drafted. For authority, see the case of Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915 (1918), as quoted in the Preface.

With this understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to discover that many reprints of the Constitution now utilize a lower-case “c” in the clauses which describe the qualifications for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. This is definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to confuse everyone into equating Citizens of the United States with citizens of the United States, courtesy of the so-called 14th Amendment. This is another crucial facet of the federal tax fraud.

There is a very big difference between the two statuses, not the least of which is the big difference in their respective liabilities for the income tax.

Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen without also being a “citizen of the United States”, whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified! According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest exercise of a State’s sovereignty is the right to declare who are its own Citizens:

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens.

[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]

[emphasis added]

This right is reserved to each of the 50 States by the Tenth Amendment.

In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again, author Alan Stang faithfully recites some of the other relevant court authorities, all of which ultimately trace back to the Slaughter House Cases and the Dred Scott decision:

Indeed, just as one may be a “citizen of the United States” and not a citizen of a State; so one apparently may be a citizen of a State but not of the United States. On July 21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431; a headnote in which tells us: “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ….” At page 434, Judge Oppenheimer cites a Wisconsin ruling in which the court said this: “Under our complex system of government, there may be a citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of the United States in the full sense of the term

[Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139]

[emphasis added]

Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is not a Citizen of any one of the 50 States. In People v. De La Guerra quoted above, the published decision of the California Supreme Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two classes of citizenship, and did so only two years after the alleged ratification of the so‑called 14th Amendment:

[Please see next page.]

I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

Using language that was much more succinct, author Luella Gettys, Ph.D. and “Sometime Carnegie Fellow in International Law” at the University of Chicago, explained it quite nicely this way:

… [A]s long as the territories are not admitted to statehood no state citizenship therein could exist.

[The Law of Citizenship in the United States]

[Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934, p. 7]

This clear distinction between the Union States and the territories is endorsed officially by the U.S. Supreme Court. Using language very similar to that of the California Supreme Court in the De La Guerra case, the high Court explained the distinction this way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the adoption of the so-called 14th amendment:

The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. … The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States**. This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129.

[Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]

[italics in original, emphasis added]

The political rights of the federal zone’s citizens are “franchises” which they hold as “privileges” at the discretion of the Congress of the United States**. Indeed, the doctrine declared earlier in the National Bank case leaves no doubt that Congress is the municipal authority for the territories:

All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States* not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by or under the authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States**. They bear much the same relation to the General Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations. The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but Congress is supreme and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of the United States***, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.

[First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)]

[emphasis added]

This knowledge can be extremely valuable. In one of the brilliant text files on his electronic bulletin board system (BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his voluminous research into the so-called 14th Amendment and related constitutional law when he made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation, of all things, in Los Angeles county municipal court:

The Accused Common-Law Citizen [Defendant] hereby places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a “citizen of the United States**” under the so-called 14th Amendment, a juristic person or a franchised person who can be compelled to perform to the regulatory Vehicle Codes which are civil in nature, and challenges the In Personam jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of law. This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of its capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Accused Citizen.

[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald’s electronic BBS]

[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

You might be wondering why someone would go to so much trouble to oppose a traffic citation. Why not just pay the fine and get on with your life? The answer lies, once again, in the fundamental and supreme Law of our Land, the Constitution for the United States of America. Sovereign State Citizens have learned to assert their fundamental rights, because rights belong to the belligerent claimant in person. The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common Law in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history a long time ago. The interpretation of the Constitution is directly influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law:

There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]

[emphasis added]

Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to travel. “Driving”, on the other hand, is defined in State Vehicle Codes to mean the act of chauffeuring passengers for hire. “Passengers” are those who pay a “driver” to be chauffeured. Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany travelers without paying for the transportation. Driving, under this definition, is a privilege for which a State can require a license. Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and a State government can prove that you are obligated thereby to obey all administrative statutes and regulations to the letter of the law. These regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways, even though the highways belong to the People. The land on which they were built, and the materials and labor expended in their construction, were all paid for with taxes obtained from the People. Provided that you are not engaged in any “privileged” or regulated activity, you are free to travel anywhere you wish within the 50 States. Those States are real parties to the U.S. Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms.

Another one of your Common Law rights is the right to own property free and clear of any liens. (“Unalienable” rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able.) You enjoy the right to own your automobile outright, without any lawful requirement that you “register” it with the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The State governments violated your fundamental rights when they concealed the legal “interest” which they obtained in your car, by making it appear as if you were required to register the car when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud. If you don’t believe me, then try to obtain the manufacturer’s statement of origin (“MSO”) the next time you buy a new car or truck. The implications and ramifications of driving around without a license, and/or without registration, are far beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that effective methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited for traveling without a license or tags. Richard McDonald is second to none when it comes to preparing a successful defense to the civil charges that might result. A Sovereign is someone who enjoys fundamental, Common Law rights, and owning property free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.

If you have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a modem, Richard McDonald can provide you with instructions for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (“BBS”) and Internet website. There is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were rather large when he began his BBS. Users were complaining of long transmission times to “download” text files over phone lines from his BBS to their own personal computers. So, McDonald used a fancy text “compression” program on all the text files available on his BBS. As a consequence, BBS users must first download a DOS program which “decompresses” the compressed files. Once this program is running on your personal computer, you are then free to download all other text files and to decompress them at your end. For example, the compressed file “14AMREC.ZIP” contains the documentation which proves that the so‑called 14th Amendment was never ratified. If you have any problems or questions, Richard McDonald is a very patient and generous man. And please tell him where you read about him and his work (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-888-9882). His website is at Internet domain

As you peruse through McDonald’s numerous court briefs and other documents, you will encounter many gems to be remembered and shared with your family, friends and associates. His work has confirmed an attribute of sovereignty that is of paramount importance. Sovereignty is never diminished in delegation.Thus, as sovereign individuals, we do not diminish our sovereignty in any way by delegating our powers to State governments, to perform services which are difficult, if not impossible for us to perform as individuals. Similarly, States do not diminish their sovereignty by delegating powers to the federal government, via the Constitution. As McDonald puts it, powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:

Under the Constitutions, “… we the People” did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers “delegated” do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority because the “LAW” is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right of another individual. This is where the concept of a corpus delicti comes from to prove a “crime” or a civil damage.

[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald’s electronic BBS]

[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

Indeed, to be a Citizen of the United States*** of America is to be one of the Sovereign People, “a constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people” [see 19 How. 404]. According to the 1870 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, the People are the fountain of sovereignty. It is extremely revealing that there is no definition of “United States” as such in this dictionary. However, there is an important discussion of the “United States of America”, where the delegation of sovereignty clearly originates in the People and nowhere else:

The great men who formed it did not undertake to solve a question that in its own nature is insoluble. Between equals it made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual forbearance of both parties. A larger confidence was placed in an enlightened public opinion as the final umpire. The people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty between the states and the United States**, and they have a natural right to determine what was given to one party and what to the other. … It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience.

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]

defining “United States of America”

People as Sovereigns

The Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America does not specifically define the word “People.” Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history.

What we call “the federal government” isn’t a government. It is not and it never has been. It is a governmental services corporation, which is a different matter entirely.

Please take this outrageous but true statement into your mind and let it rattle around a bit. Savor the fact. Consider the consequences.

The so-called “United States Government” is not a sovereign government of any kind. It is at best an association of sovereign states entered into a mutual services contract with the United States (Trading Company) and its Successors by default.

From the very beginning, the states have been the sovereign units of government. Any power of the “federal government” has been delegated to it by the states, not the other way around.

Nineteen very important powers including production of our money, control of our commerce and trade policies, control of our armed forces (except the militia) and control of our foreign policy were delegated to the British Monarch and the United States (Trading Company) in a quid pro quo in which the British Monarch agreed to act as our Trustee and protector on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways in exchange for these concessions.

That agreement was initially brokered and conceptualized as The Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783, and particularized as The Constitution for the united States of America several years later.

So from the start, there was the “united States of America”— an association of states subscribing to the service to be provided by the United States (Trading Company) and there was the British Servicer doing business as the United States. This has been the cause of a great deal of mostly deliberate confusion.

When the states “assembled” in “Congress” it meant that they elected fiduciary deputies accountable to the states —- people known as “Senators” and “Congressmen” — and sent them to a meeting called a “Congress” of the states to discuss and decide matters of mutual interest and establish a body of law applicable in all states known as the “United States Statutes at Large”.

Things went along well enough for several decades, but the British Monarch and the Pope conspired in secret Breach of Trust to undermine the American Government via the Treaty of Verona (1822).

What then commenced can only be called a gigantic fraud scheme.

The Constitution agreed to by the states has always prohibited anyone holding a foreign title of nobility from holding public elected office in the government at any level. In 1819, this provision was strengthened and ratified by the states as the Titles of Nobility Amendment. As a result no member of the Bar Association bearing the title “Esquire” could serve in the American government in any public elected office.

When Abraham Lincoln, a Bar Member, was elected President of the United States in 1860, he was not eligible to serve as President of the United States of America — the association of sovereign states participating in the Congress.

Do you see the trick now?

It was then and is now permitted for members of the Bar to hold any private corporate office, even elected corporate offices, of the United States (Trading Company) or any other such governmental services corporation that followed.

They were only prohibited from holding public elected office in our government.

Lincoln used his private corporate office, President of the United States, to overthrow the public elected government of the United States of America, and he did it by fraud and similar names deceits.

The so-called “federal government” has operated under conditions of Breach of Trust, fraud, deceit, non-disclosure, and inland piracy ever since, shamelessly substituting its private corporate offices for the public offices we are owed.

Each President since Lincoln has functioned as “President of the United States” and the vast majority of them have been Bar Members ineligible to function as “President of the United States of America” even if they had been properly elected and empowered.

As a result of this egregious and carefully concealed fraud upon the American people, there has been no lawfully elected government since 1860—- merely what appears to be one. Even the great conflict giving rise to this circumstance has been misrepresented as “The American Civil War” when in fact no such “war” can be shown to exist: there was never a valid declaration of war and never a peace treaty ending it. It is simply an illegal mercenary conflict that the perpetrators of all this rot have kept simmering on our shores for 150 years.

Lincoln, like Barack Obama, was a British Crown agent and an attorney who did not meet the requirements to be President of the united States of America, nor even President of the United States of America—-but who was eligible to serve as President of the United States, and in that foreign, private, corporate office— they have wrecked havoc and misery upon the innocent American people.

It is well past the hour in which we must wake up and realize that our supposed friends and allies have been closer to fiends and allegories. The so-called “federal government” is merely a storefront for competing international banking cartels.

The so-called FEDERAL RESERVE cartel claims to have purchased the name and copyrights and trademarks to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the IMF cartel claims the same about THE UNITED STATES. They are both commercial crime syndicates that deserve nothing but a prompt liquidation of assets and claims and the return of all property to their Priority Creditors, the American states and people.

It’s time that we all rose up with one voice and accused the Roman Pontiff and the British Monarch of the crimes of their predecessors and addressed the Gross Breach of Trust that their predecessors have been guilty of and the equally Gross Fraud that has been practiced against us, together with the crimes of identity theft, press-ganging, inland piracy, unlawful conversion of assets, enslavement and kidnapping that have been the daily fare of their regimes for the past 150 years.

The good names of the States of America and United States of America belong to us as the lawful heirs and Holders in Due Course without respect to any claims made by the banks of the FEDERAL RESERVE. THE UNITED STATES deserves nothing but a swift kick to the curb.

All these fraudulent claims and operations must be exposed and these conditions must be completely reformed. We must work hard to fully restore our lawful government on the land, call together our jural assemblies to operate our actual counties and states, and regain our senses.

For a hundred and fifty years Americans have been asleep at the wheel, being deliberately misled to believe that a governmental services corporation is the same thing as their own lawful government. That gullibility has cost us millions of lives, trillions of dollars, and sullied our name throughout the world as we have been blamed for the lawlessness, treachery, bigotry, and immorality of the pirates that have claimed to represent us and done terrible and oppressive things in our names.

The Bad News is that we have been clueless and trusting enough to allow this. The Good News is that we don’t have to allow it anymore.

If you love your country and value your lives, it is time to sit —hard— on the Archbishops and Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide. Make them all fully aware of the absolutely immoral and duplicitous actions of generations of Popes with regard to this country—-Popes who have waved olive branches and preached love out of one side of their mouths and then, as the Roman Pontiffs, have secretly pursued war and profit and committed all manner of crimes under cover of the Church’s skirts.

If FRANCISCUS thinks he is going to continue these practices unobserved, let’s give him a good salvo and inform him that no, he is not. Let him know that the entire world is watching and that the Church is not going to be able to play duplicitous games in Breach of Trust without paying the full and awful price for its hypocrisy and criminality and double-mindedness. It is, indeed, time for confession and the making of amends, and if not, it is time for the Roman Cult to be recognized as a Satanic festering cancerous sore in the Body of the Church— a disease that needs to be eradicated both from within and without, or it will most certainly kill its host.

The same basic message needs to be carried to the Lords of the Admiralty, the Lord Mayor of London, and the British Monarch. They have not escaped detection. Their hideous mismanagement of their American concession in Washington, DC, has been duly noted by the Americans as well as the rest of the world—which places them squarely between a rock and a very hard place. All these years that they have been wheedling and cheating and dealing in fraud and pretending to “represent” us —they have misused and abused American Servicemen and women who now know the truth of the matter—-that they have been slaughtered and become unwitting murderers in wars for profit, lied to, and then left abandoned as human flotsam, without jobs, without health care, without educations, without a future.

Our veterans have little to lose and good reason to hate everything that the Admiralty, the Lord Mayor, the Queen, and the Bar Associations have stood for.

The rest of the world that has suffered — seemingly at the hands of the Americans —now knows who the actual culprits are.

And it is high time that we told the Federales where to get off our soil and our backs.

If you are so stupid you still have those feelings of patriotism to this rotten corporation, and or a hundred excuses to sit on your ass, then you deserve what you are getting!!! A good screwing! Consider for a minute what this country could be like if we demanded the elimination of this tyranny. Consider the millions of American lives’ lost in all the wars for profit, but most of all consider what globalism is going to do to your future. At the very least, send this article to every person you can. Write about it in your local newspaper letters to the editor. Or, do you love liars for leaders?

A bunch of ” conspiracy Theories” right? On 911, 2001, the entire U.S. financial system was going to be replaced with the National Economic and Reformation Act which would kill the corrupt cabal money system. Look up N.E.S.A.R.A. It was the Khazarian Mafia Zionists and their Mossad agents stationed in Fort Lee New Jersey who pulled off this attack to steal gold under the buildings and keep their phony dollar system going.

Trump, who now runs the restored republic, has banned 7 countries from immigrating to America because the cabal has given them Dinar and Zim to exchange for higher prices here.

Trump appointed certain individuals to positions of power to test their loyalty. Those who faltered were exposed and fired.

Special operations troops are in the last phase of arrests which number in the thousands of corrupted officials.

Further arrests by the FBI, and the setting up of trials in March continues for all in the world to see.

It is security that has prevented the roll out of the revaluation and exchanges of currencies as test after test is conducted to deny the old regimes any access to wealth.

Our nation has been a cash cow for these thieves whose illegal IRS sends payments to the Queen and Federal Reserve members and does nothing for the nation.

Everything is changing folks and what you were “mind controlled” to perceive as good was actually rotten to the core. The free stuff was designed to make you compliant and dependent as the secret operation to exterminate minorities would reduce the population to only those individuals who contribute something to the system will be left.

Fema Camps, Rail Cars with handcuffs and guillotines, large coffins, chemtrails, Gwen Towers, GMO’s, Non cancer cures, Mercury in fillings and fluoride in drinking water were contributors to their plan.

The information that you have been denied will be forthcoming soon. Some won’t believe it and some will end their lives rather that face this transition from the dark to the light.

In 1921, the federal Sheppart-Towner Maternity Act created the birth “registration” or what we now know as the “Birth Certificate”. It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for “other purposes”. One of those other purposes provided for state agencies in overseeing of it’s operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal “birth registry’ which exists today, creating “FEDERAL CHILDREN” . This government of “Parents Patriae”, now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into those things necessary to carry our activities that exist in what is call a “free country”.

Before 1921, the records of births and names of children were entered into the family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as “official records”. Since 1921, the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child’s birth through the birth certificate serves proof that he/she was born in the united States, thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth. The social security number is one of those “other purposes“. It serves as a means of lifelong tracking of the one whose name is on the birth certificate.

In 1933, the united States of America (Corporate Government) was declared bankrupt by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the “full faith and credit” of each of their States, including the

CITIZENRY AS COLLATERAL, for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve System.

To wit; “FULL FAITH AND CREDIT” the clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) which provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the united States. It requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it’s origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgment of record shall have the same FAITH, CREDIT CONCLUSIVE EFFECT, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, and Sixth Edition (page 672), cites omitted.

After receiving the information of live birth and other particulars for the birth certificate accompanied by the assigned social security number, the state claims an interest in every child within it’s jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset which, if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by it’s labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that

the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate

and the social security number is the numbering registration of the trust, allowing for the trust’s assets to be tracked. If this information is true (and we believe it is), our children are owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of “bankrupt” united States Corporation. We are now designated by this government as

“HUMAN RESOURCES” born in a DELIVERY room, delivered to the state of birth by way of the

BIRTH CERTIFICATE for which our INFORMER (our Mother) provides the requested information including the

NAME and SOCIAL SECURITY (or tracking) NUMBER wherewith this bankrupt government is supplied with new

crop of COLLATERAL born each year.

The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void.

The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government (a Corporation) and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States. In re: Rabrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. vs. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149;

Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

The MATERNITY ACT was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this

ACT attempted to do was to set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re- delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional.

What was once declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution has not changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as HUMAN RESOURCES, believed to be owned by the government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D., which is unconstitutional. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to

elected public servants will not save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power (servitude).

Perhaps the 10th Amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes that they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority.

If our God given RIGHTS to life, liberty, freedom and Pursuit of happiness, which were

the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom

is only an illusion under which the American People

suffer then let the government of this nation come forward and tell the people. But…..if we are judged free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it is our duty to address this issue forthright and forthwith with the power of the pen and pray the people will waken from their fear and slumber induced by greed.

In 1923, a suit was brought against “federal officials” (corporation) charged with the administration of the Maternity Act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution’s 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States held that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything and no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls not on the State but on it’s inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Melton, Secretary of the

Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth Massachusetts. To wit;

The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government (a Corporation) powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purpose of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which

maybe imposed under the act; THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENT

PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS OF THE RIGHT OF

A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN

SELECTION, all are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected.

There is nothing, which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of Federal appropriations.

INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH

CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAYBE

REQUIRED by Section 4 of the act, the Children’s Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate

with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power of assist in the

plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the

Board. The FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM

INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS

CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH

WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY T.HE ACT

The act is invalid because it assumes powers not Granted to Congress and Usurps the local police power.

In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulations of matter wholly within the Police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power, Hammer vs. Dagenhart, 247,259 U.S … 44. The act is not made valid by the circumstances that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution.

“Most Germans, so far as I could see, did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of their splendid culture was being destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work were being regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation … On the whole, people did not seem to feel that they were being cowed and held down by an unscrupulous tyranny. On the contrary, they appeared to support it with genuine enthusiasm.” ― William L. Shirer, The Nightmare Years 1930-40

For too long now, the American people have allowed themselves to be persuaded that the government’s job is to take care of us: to feed us, clothe us, house us, educate us, raise our children, heal our infirmities, manage our finances, protect us from our enemies, guard us against all dangers (real and imaginary), and provide for our every need.

Where Americans go wrong is in failing to recognize that there’s always a catch to such devil’s bargains purportedly carried out for the good of all society.

You want free education for your children? The government can take care of it. In exchange for free public schools, however, your children will be molded and indoctrinated into compliant, obedient citizens who reflect the government’s values rather than your own.

You want free health care? The government can take care of that, too. In exchange, your medical decisions—how you live and die—will ultimately be determined by corporations to whom you are little more than a line item impacting their profit and loss margins.

You want to be insulated from all things that might cause offense? That’s not a problem for the government. Its thought police will use hate crime laws to criminalize speech, thought and actions that may be politically incorrect.

You want a guarantee of safety? Sure, but your local police will also have to be militarized and trained in battlefield tactics, your communities and communications will be subjected to round-the-clock surveillance, and you—the citizenry—will be treated as suspects and enemy combatants.

You want to root out domestic extremism and terrorism? That’s just fine. But in the process of identifying and targeting terrorists, the government will have the power to label anyone who disagrees with its policies as an extremist/terrorist and subject them to indefinite detentions.

Are you starting to get the picture?

This is the terrible price—the loss of our freedoms and the enslavement of future generations—that must eventually be paid for the goods and services rendered by a government whose priorities are the acquisition of ever-more power, control and money.

As the old adage warns: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”

Unfortunately, we’ve been on the receiving end of the government’s taxpayer-funded handouts—and its deceptively well-intended dictates—for so long that many Americans have forgotten what it is to think for themselves, provide for themselves, and govern themselves.

Indeed, this age of entitlement is a far cry from the kind of constitutional republic America’s founders envisioned.

Gone is the proud, independent-minded, pioneering spirit of early Americans like my parents who rejected what they called “hand-outs,” worked hard for whatever they had, protected their homes and families, and believed the government’s job was to govern based on the consent of the governed and not dictate.

Contrast those fiercely-independent, early Americans who took to heart James Madison’s admonition to distrust all those in power with today’s citizens who not only expect the government to care for their needs but have blindly entrusted the government with vast, growing powers.

By giving the government the green light to act in loco parentis and treat the citizenry as children in need of caretakers, “we the people” have allowed ourselves to be demoted and infantilized, reduced from knowledgeable, independent-minded, capable masters of a republic to wayward, undisciplined, dependent, vulnerable children incapable of caring for ourselves.

It’s time to grow up.

Incredibly, despite the fact that we allowed the government to become all-knowing, all-powerful and all-mighty in the mistaken belief that it would make our lives safer, easier and more affluent, we’re still shocked when that power and might is used against us.

It’s time to stop being so gullible and so trusting.

Even when the headlines blare out the news about SWAT team raids gone awry, police shootings of unarmed citizens, roadside cavity searches of young women, children being shackled and tasered, and Americans jailed for profit in private prisons, we still somehow maintain our state of denial until suddenly we’re the ones in the firing line being treated like suspects and criminals, having our skulls cracked, our doors smashed, our pets shot, our children terrorized, and our loved ones jailed for non-offenses.

It’s time to remove those rose-colored, partisan-tinted glasses and wake up to the fact that our nation of sheep has given rise to a government of wolves.

Even though, deep down, we have suspected that the system is run by an elite who views the citizenry as little more than cattle destined for the slaughterhouse, we’re still shocked to find ourselves treated like slaves and economic units.

How could we not have seen it coming?

How long has the writing been on the wall?

How could we have been so blind, deaf and dumb to the warnings all around us?

Unfortunately, it happens this way in every age, in every place where freedom falls and tyranny flourishes.

As Aldous Huxley recognized in his foreword to Brave New World: “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.”

This is how the seeds of authoritarianism are planted and watered and cultivated into aggressive, invasive growths that can quickly dominate an environment.

Hitler didn’t take over a small government with an effective separation of enumerated, delegated and limited powers. He took over a large welfare state… He dealt with unemployment by introducing forced labor for both men and women. Government control of the economy made it virtually impossible for anyone to seriously threaten his regime. Hitler added secret police, death camps and another war machine. The German educational system, which had inspired so many American progressives, played a major role in all this… the government gained complete control of schools and universities, and their top priority was teaching obedience. The professorial elite promoted collectivism. The highest calling was working for the government.

It can easily happen here.

In fact, the early signs of this downshift are all around us if you only know where to look.

You can smell it in the air: there’s danger coming. A recent New Yorker article reveals the lengths some of the wealthiest in America are going to in order to survive an apocalyptic breakdown of society: isolated refuges, bunkers, gas masks, generators, solar panels, ammunition, etc.

You can see it in the changes taking place all around you: the government is preparing for something ominous. For example, the Pentagon is using a dystopian training video to prepare special forces to deal with the urban challenges of megacities: criminal networks, illicit economies, decentralized syndicates of crime, substandard infrastructure, religious and ethnic tensions, impoverishment, economic inequality, protesters, slums, open landfills, over-burdened sewers, and a “growing mass of unemployed.”

You can hear it in the news coming out of the independent media: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches have already weakened our long-established bulwarks against tyranny by their constant undermining of the Constitution and the president’s amassing of imperial power.

We are no longer a constitutional republic.

The American dream is turning into a living nightmare.

We are fast moving towards full-blown fascism.

So what’s the answer?

The powers that be can—and will—continue to distract us with electronic gadgets and entertainment news, they can seduce us with promises they have no intention of keeping, they can drug us with politics packaged to resemble religion, and they can use the schools to breed a populace of compliant slaves.

In the end, however, the choice of whether to keep drinking the Kool-Aid or reject the false prophets and promises of the police state—a.k.a. fascism or totalitarianism or tyranny—rests with “we the people.”

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

In spite of John’s good intentions, he still remains un-willing to confront the real problem of Corporate Government and THE BANKING CARTEL. Where does he think all this crap we are subjected to is coming from if we are a democracy? Can’t a democracy just vote the bums out? Those of you who really believe we have freedom of choice in our government have been asleep all your life. The truth is explicitly laid out in the following article.

You need to read this because the World Economic Forum does carry some weight. Mostly around their waist because their heads are completely empty. They must surely believe that we are dumber than rocks if they think we are going to stand still and let corporations have all our money, and that is exactly what this is all about. Folks, digits do not have any value, they are just a medium of exchange like checks, and just who is dumb enough to exchange digits for money. I don’t mean just transaction digits because that has been going on all our life, but their real objective is to steel your cash. Under the pretense of making money safer! Well digits have no intrinsic value and you can only use them for what they allow you to purchase! Remember the word (ALLOW!) “To let somebody or yourself have something, often a benefit or pleasure of some kind.” But what if the bank does not want you to buy a particular item! ?

Moving to a digital currency could have big advantages, says Joseph Stiglitz

Image: World Economic Forum / Boris Baldinger

Written by Ross Chainey Digital Media Specialist, World Economic Forum

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economist, thinks so. Phasing out currency and moving towards a digital economy would, over the long term, have “benefits that outweigh the cost,” the Columbia University professor said on day one of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos.

Stiglitz was speaking in the session Ending Corruption alongside Mark Pieth from the Basel Institute of Governance and APCO Worldwide Founder and Executive Chairman Margery Kraus. Stiglitz and Pieth co-authored a report, Overcoming the Shadow Economy, in November last year.

Quantifying the scale of the problem, Stiglitz said: “You can put it into the context of one of the big issues being discussed in Davos this year – the backlash against globalization, the darker side of globalization … The lack of transparency in global financial markets, the secrecy havens that the Panama Papers exposed, just reinforced what we already knew … There is a global framework for both corruption and tax evasion and tax avoidance.

“The fact that you can hide ill-gotten gains so easily in these secrecy havens really provides incentives for people to engage in this activity as they can get the economic returns and then enjoy the benefits of those returns. If there were not these secrecy havens then the benefits from engaging in these kinds of illicit activity would be much diminished.”

One of the countries that has not done enough to fight corruption is the US, Stiglitz went on to say, and one remedy could be to phase out cash and embrace digital currencies.

“I believe very strongly that countries like the United States could and should move to a digital currency,” he said, “so that you would have the ability to trace this kind of corruption. There are important issues of privacy, cyber-security, but it would certainly have big advantages.”

Stiglitz is not the only Davos economist to make the case for a “less-cash” society. Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff has argued for two decades that a society awash with cash contributes to the growth of the underground economy. Rogoff believes large-denomination bank notes, rarely used by ordinary people and businesses, should be phased out. “Cash facilitates crime because it is anonymous, and big bills are especially problematic because they are so easy to carry and conceal

The world is awash in paper currency, with major country central banks pumping out hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth each year, mainly in very large denomination notes such as the $100 bill. The $100 bill accounts for almost 80% of the US’s stunning $4,200 per capita cash supply. The ¥10,000 note (about $100) accounts for roughly 90% of all Japan’s currency, where per capita cash holdings are almost $7,000. And, as I have been arguing for two decades, all this cash is facilitating growth mainly in the underground economy, not the legal one.

I am not advocating a cashless society, which will be neither feasible nor desirable anytime soon. But a less-cash society would be a fairer and safer place.

With the growth of debit cards, electronic transfers, and mobile payments, the use of cash has long been declining in the legal economy, especially for medium and large-size transactions. Central bank surveys show that only a small percentage of large-denomination notes are being held and used by ordinary people or businesses.

Cash facilitates crime because it is anonymous, and big bills are especially problematic because they are so easy to carry and conceal. A million dollars in $100 notes fits into a briefcase, a million dollars in €500 notes (each worth about $565) fits into a purse.

Image: RBR

Sure, there are plenty of ways to bribe officials, engage in financial crime, and evade taxes without paper currency. But most involve very high transaction costs (for example, uncut diamonds), or risk of detection (say, bank transfers or credit card payments).

Yes, new-age crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin, if not completely invulnerable to detection, are almost so. But their value sharply fluctuates, and governments have many tools with which they can restrict their use – for example, by preventing them from being tendered at banks or retail stores. Cash is unique in its liquidity and near-universal acceptance.

The costs of tax evasion alone are staggering, perhaps $700 billion per year in the United States (including federal, state, and local taxes), and even more in high-tax Europe. Crime and corruption, though difficult to quantify, almost surely generate even greater costs. Think not just of illegal drugs and racketeering, but also of human trafficking, terrorism, and extortion.

Moreover, cash payments by employers to undocumented workers are a principal driver of illegal immigration. Scaling back the use of cash is a far more humane way to limit immigration than building barbed-wire fences.

If governments were not so drunk from the profits they make by printing paper currency, they might wake up to the costs. There has been a little movement of late. The European Central Bank recently announced that it will phase out its €500 mega-note. Still, this long overdue change was implemented against enormous resistance from cash-loving Germany and Austria. Yet even in northern Europe, reported per capita holdings of currency are still quite modest relative to the massive outstanding supply in the eurozone as a whole (over €3,000 per capita).

Southern European governments, desperate to raise tax revenue, have been taking matters into their own hands, even though they do not control note issuance. For example, Greece and Italy have been trying to discourage cash use by capping retail cash purchases (at €1,500 and €1,000, respectively).

Obviously, cash remains important for small everyday transactions, and for protecting privacy. Northern European central bankers who favor the status quo like to quote Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky: “Money is coined liberty.” Of course, Dostoevsky was referring to life in a mid-nineteenth century czarist prison, not a modern liberal state. Still, the northern Europeans have a point. The question is whether the current system has the balance right. I would argue that it clearly does not.

A plan for reining in paper currency should be guided by three principles. First, it is important to allow ordinary citizens to continue using cash for convenience and to make reasonable-size anonymous purchases, while undermining the business models of those engaged in large, repeated anonymous transactions on a wholesale level. Second, any plan should move very gradually (think a decade or two), to allow adaptations and mid-course corrections as unexpected problems arise. And, third, reforms must be sensitive to the needs of low-income households, especially those that are unbanked.

In my new book, The Curse of Cash, I offer a plan that involves very gradually phasing out large notes, while leaving small notes ($10 and below) in circulation indefinitely. The plan provides for financial inclusion by offering low-income households free debit accounts, which could also be used to make government transfer payments. This last step is one that some countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, have already taken.

Scaling back paper currency would hardly end crime and tax evasion; but it would force the underground economy to employ riskier and less liquid payment devices. Cash may seem like a small, unimportant thing in today’s high-tech financial world, but the benefits of phasing out most paper currency are a lot larger than you might think.

FROM DAVOS…

So this is how they are going to convince us how wonderful a cashless society will be — a society based on digital currency. There is so much corruption because of cash. Get rid of the cash and make every transaction that occurs have to go through a computer for someone’s bank account to reflect some kind of payment and we will get rid of all the money laundering, drugs, etc. It might be believable if governments around the world were not the entity behind most of the crime and money laundering. And how hard is it for them to set up a second system of payments to continue on their merry road of money laundering??? Not very. MB

Comments Off on The US should get rid of cash and move to a digital currency, says this Nobel Laureate economist

From The Great American Adventure, Secrets of America (Part 5) by Judge Dale, retired. The following is SECTION 2 in the LAWFULLY YOURS guide.

I didn’t plan on writing PART 5 but given the global movement in play to collapse the fiat financial dominance historically created and controlled by the Vatican, European Royal and Elite plus the retaliatory efforts by the United States Corporation to recoup their control of America, I felt a need to point out the flaws in their CORPORATE PROCESS. You probably identify with this CORPORATE PROCESS as LEGAL PROCESS but it really isn’t about what is legal or lawful because all process is about the enforcement of CONTRACTS or the imposition and enforcement of CORPORATE REGULATIONS called STATUTES. The best advice you will ever receive is to: AVOID THEIR COURTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. There is NO justice to be found in those courts unless you are a member of the Vatican, the royal or Elite, or have purchased Diplomatic Immunity.

THE COURTS

The only Constitutional Court in America is the International Court of Trades, which was created because no Foreign Nation Government would trade with the Corporate United States, until they provided a way for these foreign Nations to enforce their Trade Agreements with America.

NOTE: Historically, the World Court was created to provide Nations with a venue to enforce their Trade Agreements but the Corporate United States refused the Courts invitation to participate because they were denied control over the Court.

All of the other American Courts are pseudo courts or fictions and simply are Corporate Administrative Offices designed to resemble Courts and all of their Judges are simply Executive Administrations designed to resemble Judges.

The purpose of these pseudo Corporate Courts are only to settle contract disputes and since George Washington’s government was military in structure; if either party refuses to participate, these Courts cannot become involved and the dispute is dead in the water! My use of the term ‘dead in the water’ is not a canard because these pseudo Courts are unconstitutional Courts of Admiralty, the International Law of the Sea!

The Washington Monument was completed in 1884, as a tribute to George Washington and his military government, which is actually a sea-level obelisk that infers that all of America is ‘under water’ and thus subject to the Laws of Admiralty as opposed or contrary to the intended Constitutional Civilian Government under Common Law.

The pseudo Judges of these pseudo Courts have NO powers without the Consent of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. [AND] In every case the Judge must determine that he has Consent, Personam and Subject Matter Jurisdiction before he can act or access the Cestui Que Trust.

NOTE:

All tradeable Securities must be assigned a CUSIP NUMBER before it can be offered to investors. Birth Certificates and Social Security Applications are converted into Government Securities; assigned a CUSIP NUMBER; grouped into lots and then are marked as a Mutual Fund Investment. Upon maturity, the profits are moved into a GOVERNMENT CESTUI QUE TRUST and if you are still alive, the certified documents a reinvested. It is the funds contained in this CESTUI QUE TRUST that the Judge, Clerk and County Prosecutor are really after or interested in! This Trust actually pays all of your debts but nobody tells you that because the Elite consider those assets to be their property and the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the management of those Investments.

Social Security, SSI, SSD, Medicare and Medicaid are all financed by the Trust. The government makes you pay TAXES and a portion of your wages supposedly to pay for these services, which they can borrow at any time for any reason since they cannot access the Cestui Que Trust to finance their wars or to bail out Wall Street and their patron Corporations.

The public is encouraged to purchase all kinds of insurance protection when the TRUST actually pays for all physical damages, medical costs, new technology and death benefits. The hype to purchase insurance is a ploy to keep us in poverty and profit off our stupidity because the Vatican owns the controlling interest in all Insurance Companies.

You may receive a monthly statement form a Mortgage Company, Loan Company or Utility Company, which usually has already been paid by the TRUST. Almost all of these corporate businesses double dip and hope that you have been conditioned well enough by their Credit Scams, to pay them a second time. Instead of paying that Statement next time, sign it approved and mail it back to them. If they then contact you about payment, ask them to send you a TRUE BILL instead of a Statement and you will be glad to pay it. A Statement documents what was due and paid, whereas a TRUE BILL represents only what is due. Banks and Utility Companies have direct access into these Cestui Que Trusts and all they needed was your name; social security number and signature.

CRIMINAL LAW

There are NO Criminal Laws in America because Criminal Laws would imply that the Corporate United States Government are Sovereign that have absolute power over all living, flesh and blood Americans, which of course is not true because a corporation is a fiction and therefore cannot be sovereign. Man is Sovereign and is in control of his own destiny and one day he will finally wake up and realize this to be true! There is however Criminal Contracts being enforced against us and with our Consent, which are surreptitiously called: Criminal Statutes. Our Consent has been obtained by them visa vie our silence and failure to act or protest, which under law is defined as Tacit Procuration.

(e.g.) Tacit Procuration:If someone accuses you of theft in writing and you fail to respond or deny those allegations in writing, your failure to deny or act is considered an admission of guilt (or) You receive a Bill for goods or services that you never ordered or received, and you fail to deny those allegations, your omission represents the truth of the matter, which imposes an obligation to pay! Collection companies frequently use Tacit Procuration to establish indebtedness to them on a discharged debt they had purchased from some corporate business.

‘Now you’re probably thinking: No Criminal Laws? Well, that can’t be true? A whole lot of people have been tried; convicted and are doing time in American Jails for breaking Criminal Laws!’

And my response to that is: True, they are in Jail because they unknowingly accepted the Criminal Contract on behalf of their Birth Certificate and consented to be imprisoned as a condition of their conviction and punishment. Their lawyer didn’t help any because he reinforced that situation by and through his Notice of Appearance to represent you. It is the Birth Certificate that is under arrest, which I will explain shortly!

NOTE: Criminal Contracts are graded according to the severity of the crime alleged and that grading is identified as either: Summary; Misdemeanor; Felony or Capital offenses.

The Criminal Process Usually begins with a Police Officer issuing a Citation (or) making an arrest with or without a Warrant [or] the Police Officer [or] County Attorney prepares a complaint based upon a sworn affidavit or information, which is presented to a Judge and a Warrant is then issued. The defendant is subsequently arrested and is brought before a Judge for arraignment.

The Complaint and Warrant will reflect your BIRTH NAME or identify you as a JOHN DOE, if your name is unknown, which is typed out in all capital letters! This is not a mistake on their part because it is your Birth Certificate that is under arrest and not your living, flesh and blood person. The hope of these pseudo Courts is that the flesh and blood person will be intimidated enough to accept responsibility for the Birth Certificate! Sounds crazy but nothing is what it seems. It’s all ‘Smoke and Mirrors’.

Most Police Officers do not know or have these details and believe in what they are doing and believe the lawyers who counsel them in law like they are Gods! Big mistake on their part because just like everyone else, they too have been vigorously lied to! You can’t trust lawyers to be inherently honest!

Police Officers are instructed to always print or type the Defendants Name in Capital letters but they are never told the reason why! As a precaution, you should always carry a copy of your Birth Certificate with you as part of your identification papers, which I will explain in the next paragraph.

At your Arraignment or Trial, the Judge will ask you if you are the named individual [ALL CAPS BIRTH NAME] on the complaint and your natural response will be to answer in the affirmative but that is exactly what you don’t want to do!

Remove your Birth Certificate and respond to him by stating: I am making a Special Limited Appearance on behalf of the defendant who is right here and hold up your Birth Certificate!

Then state the following:

As I understand this process Judge, the County Attorney or Police Officer has leveled a criminal charge with the Clerk and against the Trust, using the ALL CAPS NAME that appears on this BIRTH CERTIFICATE! The use of capital letters is dictated by the US Printing Style Manuel, which explains how to identify a CORPORATION, The Clerk, who is the ADMINISTRATOR of the CESTA QUE TRUST, then, appointed you Judge as the TRUSTEE for the TRUST and since neither of you can be the BENEFICIARY, that leaves me and therefore you are MY TRUSTEE!

So as MY TRUSTEE, I instruct you to discharge this entire matter, with prejudice and award the penalties for these crimes to be paid to me in compensation and damages for my false arrest!

The TRUSTEE Judge has no alternative but to honor your demands but you have to get this right and act with confidence! You really need to know this information well, so that you can’t be hoodwinked or confused by either of them! They will or may attempt to play some mind games with you if you display any doubt, stammer of display a lack of confidence! Appearances [the pomp and majesty] of these pseudo Courts, is totally for your benefit and is intended to invoke fear and intimidation! If you show fear or intimidation, you get a pony ride!

NOTE: I’ve seen and heard of Judges and Prosecutors interfering with a defendant’s response, which made the defendant, become confused and he was subsequently committed into a mental hospital for psychiatric evaluation. The Judge and Prosecutor successfully twisted what the defendant was trying to say and then the Judge Ordered a mental evaluation.

Understand that the County Attorney will be forced to pay the Cost of Court out of his own pocket, if the case is discharged, so he isn’t going to give up that easily and the Judge, Clerk and County Attorney, stand to make a pretty penny off your conviction and incarceration! So don’t screw it up.

If the County Attorney begins to act too cocky with you, you can take the wind out of his sails by asking him to produce the 1020 for this case? If he denies the need to do such a thing, inform him that you will be taking care of that for him ASAP [as soon as possible]! He may move for a discharge at that point because you are a little too dangerous or smart! The last thing that Prosecutor wants is the IRS examining his files for the last seven years because he makes money on every conviction but he doesn’t pay TAXES on them as a Rule! He usually only declares the salary he receives.

Also, should you accidentally find yourself in a mental hospital, the Psychiatrist who is assigned or appointed to evaluate you is just as corrupt as the Judge, Clerk and County Attorney and he will falsify all of your responses to him, just so that you are recommitted back into the mental facility with a review in six months! So lie to him and deny that you ever made such remarks! Of course, if you accept the criminal charges against your Birth Certificate, then you will instantly be deemed SANE!

Sorry that I had to be the one to tell you this but this is how corrupt many of my fellow Judges truly are and it should explain why my conscience caused me to retire early! Before I learned what was really going on, I believed that my duties and performance were entirely Constitutional. I was lied to also!

CITATIONS

The CITATION process can be handled much easier; through the mail. When a Police Officer issues you a CITATION, he is actually requesting you to CONTRACT with him! He is alleging that you violated a corporate regulation in writing, which you have accepted by signing and thus requires you to respond.

The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!

You can cancel that CONTRACT however my rescinding your CONSENT, within three business days of entering into such a CONTRACT. So across the face of the CITATION you should print or type in large print, the following words:

I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT

And I DO NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.

Use blue ink [for admiralty] or purple ink [for royalty]. Admiralty is the Court and Royalty represents your Sovereignty. Either way is appropriate. Sign your signature underneath in blue or purple ink and in front of a Notary and under your signature type: Without prejudice, UCC 1-308. This is another way to declare that you may not be held responsible for this contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. Serve Cancelled Citation back on the Clerk/Court, along with a Certificate of Service, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. This kills the CITATION, removes your CONSENT and removes the JURISDICTION of the Court, all at the same time. It really is that simple!

NOTE: A Certificate of Service is a letter that first identifies the Citation and then defines how and when you returned the document to the Court and is signed. If not denied, it becomes a truth in commerce by Tacit Procuration.

Remember to keep a copy of everything, in case the Clerk attempts to trash your response, which certainly will not happen with a Certificate of Service or if it is mailed back by the Notary. The Notary is actually a Deputy Secretary of State and is more powerful than the Court Clerk!

Public Notaries originate from the time of the Egyptian and Roman Scribes who were the purveyors of certified documents, which are sworn affidavits. Certified documents and sworn affidavits are truth in commerce. [e.g.] Birth Certificates are certified documents on bonded paper. The word bonded is derived from bondage as in slavery, which makes all of us Bond Slaves to whoever retains custody of our original Birth Certificates. I bet you believed that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves and it did for a short time and then the Birth Certificate and the 14th Amendment enslaved us all!

SUMMONS and LAWSUITS

The SUMMONS process, whether it is defined a Civil or Criminal Action, is once again an offer to CONTRACT, despite what words are to command your appearance or response. It too can be cancelled just by following the same procedure as the CITATION process above. A million dollar lawsuit is no different than a CITATION and both can be cancelled! Hard to believe, isn’t it?

Does your lawyer know about this? You bet he does but he is not permitted to embarrass the Court and besides, Court is where he makes his money!

NOTE: How many of you have ever attempted to avoid Jury Duty? All you had to do was cancel the SUMMONS [OFFER to CONTRACT]; Notarize it and mail it back to the Jury Commissioner. Don’t worry, they won’t bother you because you are obviously too smart and may influence their Jury! The Jury [controls] the Court and not the Prosecutor and Judge and if you know that, they lose and the defendant wins, which is why they prefer only the dumbed down candidates to serve on Jury.

There are a few matters or issues that are next to impossible to circumvent or quash because of the depth of corruption within these pseudo Courts, such as child custody and the division of property resulting form a divorce. The Birth State claims the custody of your children pursuant to the Birth Certificate and records them under the Department of Transportation as a State owned Vessel!

A marriage is a CONTRACT and all that is required is a PRE-NUPIAL AGREEMENT to complete the marriage but if you are sufficiently indoctrinated to believe that a Judge or Mayor or a Minister or Priest, must join you in holy matrimony and you subsequently applied for a LICENSE; now you both have married the STATE as well! Now the State is entitled to its fair share of the division of your marital property should the marriage not work out or should you die [called probate]! Some people might say that a divorce should be included on this list of impossible issues but then they don’t know what I know!

DIVORCE

An Action in Divorce is a request to break the LICENSED MARRIAGE CONTRACT. If you desire a divorce and your spouse refuses to consent to a divorce, no State Judge will grant you a Divorce Decree because the Judge has not been granted the CONSENT of both parties! There is a way around this however, which your lawyer will never admit to because he cannot make any money from giving you truthful or sound advice!

NOTE: Puerto Rico is a United States Territory acquired from Spain and it still operates under Spanish Law. This was never changed by the Corporate United States when Puerto Rico became a US Territory, so first you need to fly to Puerto Rico.

Once in Puerto Rico, you can establish residency by simply opening a Post Office Box for a period of three days. Just after opening the Post Office Box, hire a local Paralegal to prepare an Action in Divorce for you. The Paralegal will file the divorce petition immediately, which is generally a certified form document and it will be heard by a Puerto Rican Judge within three days.

Under Spanish law, your spouse is not required to be served the divorce petition: only the divorce decree. Five days after the Decree, your former spouse will receive the divorce decree in the mail, written entirely in Spanish, which cannot be contested and must be honored by all US Federal and State Courts!

NOTE: Immediately after the Puerto Rican Judge declares you divorced, if you choose, you can marry again by Contract or by License. Both are legitimate, but no one will ever tell you that!

The division of marital property and custody of children is a much more complicated issue but at least the divorce cannot be utilized as leverage against you to divide up your property, less than proportionately, which is exactly why American Judges will not bifurcate the issues involved in a divorce. [e.g.] Divorce; division of property; custody; support and alimony. The hope is that your desire to obtain a divorce is worth more to you than anything else you own, now or in the future!

FORECLOSURE

If you are involved in a FORECLOSURE or are thinking about filing for BANKRUPTCY protection to buy you more time, instead of trying to defeat the corrupt Bank and your Creditors in a State or Federal Court, where the cards are certainly stacked against you, plan to file for BANKRUPTCY and do it this way, to ensure that you come out on top! All BANKRUPTCY FORMS are printable; can be obtained on line and they can be completed in longhand with an ink pen. The Forms to use are: B-1 through and including B-8, You only need to prepare and file the first five or six pages to obtain a Case Number and then you must sit through a Credit Counseling session, which can be done all in a day. When you are completely finished with preparing your petition, you should have filed about 58 pages in total and the filing fee is around $280.

Here’s the reason for using the Bankruptcy Courts:

List all your debts on one schedule and when it comes to listing your assets include your BIRTH CERTIFICATE and its CUSIP NO. The value of the Mutual Fund Investment for your Birth Certificate can also be found on line using the CUSIP Number under Fidelity Investments. You will discover that it is worth multi-millions but you must have the CUSIP NO. on your asset schedule or the Birth Certificate will be discharged as frivolous by the JUDGE or the TRUSTEE. The Bankruptcy Judge will then appoint a LAWYER TRUSTEE to dissolve the Mutual Fund Investment: pay off your debts and the balance must be paid to you! This procedure usually attracts the attention of the [DOJ] Department of Justice because they don’t want the LAWYER TRUSTEE to screw up and short change the Vatican; the Federal Reserve and the Corporate United States and so they tend to warn or threaten the LAWYER TRUSTEE to be very careful!

Most of these Mutual Fund Investments usually involve a group of between 10 t0 25 Birth Certificates and so only a fraction of that Mutual Fund belongs to you! The Bankruptcy Judge will not certify the final disposition until the LAWYER TRUSTEE can prove his math and every aspect of his work because the Judge inherits responsibility for the Trustee’s errors, if he made any!

After the LAWYER TRUSTEE resigns, you can probably cut a deal with the DOJ or you can proceed on with the same Bankruptcy proceeding and the newly appointed LAWYER TRUSTEE! Now isn’t that easier and better than attacking or defending yourself against the Bank and a bunch of greedy Creditors; knowing full well that the cards are stacked against you because of the Vatican and the Federal Reserve System.

While you are in Bankruptcy, you are protected. No one can proceed against you for any debts or foreclosure, as long as you have a bond or sufficient assets, the Birth Certificate guarantees that aspect and while in Bankruptcy, you won’t have to pay on any of those past debts!

NOTE: There is a process to follow to determine your CUSIP NO [OR] you can ask a Stock Broker friend to help you [or] hire a Broker on the side to assist you. There are people in the Patriot movement who also know how to apply the formula, which converts your Birth Registration Number and or Social Security Number into a CUSIP Number. I paid to have mine done and discovered that I am worth about 167 million. It’s all FIAT money but as long as it can be spent, who cares?

I hope that this entire expose has enlightened and elevated your personal knowledge and will benefit you now and in the future. Pax vobiscum (Peace be with you.)

Because I am a “lifer” in the military, I’ve seen the impact of a president more than many of you can imagine. I enlisted with LBJ and saw just what a Democrat clusterflock was all about. I went to Vietnam and saw how we were constantly and incessantly bombarded with micromanagement from Washington that got thousands of military people killed. I wonder sometimes if I’ll get to heaven, but if I go to hell, I’m sure I’ll still be a few hundred floors above those bastards Robert McNamara, LBJ, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and yes, even the “hero”, John McCain.

After Johnson “abdicated” rather than having his ass waxed, I lived through Nixon who was hawkish but allowed the generals (and there WERE a few real generals back then versus now) run the show. He was so out of touch that he never knew North Vietnam was about to surrender when the Paris Accord was presented. Only God could help us after Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy Peanuts who’d been funded by Saudi money. The military was turned into Section 8 and even the White House suffered the austerity.

Then the light began to shine and Ronald Reagan swept into the fray. He not only loved the country and the military, they loved him back. Esprit d’corps was off the scale during his presidency. The Liberals were slowly turning into socialists, however, and about this time all the draft dodgers of the 1960’s who’d been given amnesty by Jimmy Peanuts were turning out college graduates with degrees in socialism.

Bush 1 was an enigma from the CIA and though he never did much either way, he NEVER DID MUCH EITHER WAY.

Welcome to Bill Clinton. Clinton spent most of his two terms wagging the dog and creating the Oral Office, sending a bomber to blow up Quaddafi’s tent and killing a goat or two, while allowing the UN to set up the infamous Black Hawk Down situation. He made history by becoming only the second president to be impeached.

I actually felt sorry for Bush 2. He was doomed to infamy from the start. He thought most of America was still the ‘rah rah’ patriots of WWII when they were simply socialists waiting to feed him to the sharks.

Then there came the Manchurian Candidate with a faked (OK Democrats, let’s say “of questionable origin” to assuage your PC brains) birth certificate, who’d gotten a free ride through college under a foreign student exemption, and whose college records and complete life history had been sealed. (We know more about Thomas Jefferson’s bastard children than we do about Obama, Michelle, OR their two kids.) From his inaugural address, he slandered America and within days had begun to encourage dissension of the races as well as slandering police who “acted stupidly.” That was mild to the crap that would come in doubling the national debt from what had been built by ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED, feeding us bullspit about how Muslims built this country, and nationalizing American industries. Fueled by George Soros’ money and using the Air Force fleet as his personal charters, he appointed malcontents and traitors into positions of authority. He trashed the Constitution by installing “czars” (interesting he chose a title like that) to bypass Congressional authority. By that time, Congress was completely corrupt on both sides of the aisle. No one had balls to impeach this charlatan.

Mysteriously, the lone outspoken conservative Supreme Court Justice suddenly dies in his sleep at an Obama pal’s hunting lodge and the Supreme Court is evenly split. Finally, Congress shows some balls and rejects Obama’s nomination. The Libtards aren’t worried because the fix is in. Soros has paid demonstrators to cause turmoil at all the Republican gatherings, Obama concedes that illegal aliens should vote as they won’t be prosecuted, and Soros-manufactured voting machines are caught switching votes in certain precincts. Hillary has cheated her way to the nomination and her lies are completely ignored by the brainwashed minions of sycophants who follow her.

But a shocking thing happened on the way to the forum. Middle America had had enough and although the pollsters and the pipers tried to convince them not even to bother to vote, they were fed up with the denizens of the swamp. It was time. Florida was designated a “swing” state ignoring that all those old retirees living in St. Petersburg, and the fed up Cuban Americans of Miami weren’t interested in their platform. Ohio and Pennsylvania, where coal production was blacklisted and where Obama had ridiculed them for “clinging to their Bibles and their guns,” lay awaiting this supposed “landslide” Hillary vote and creamed it.

The Socialist world of the Democratic Party disintegrated. An American who expressed unbridled love of country and respect for police, firemen, and military steamrolled across the heartland and the liberals realized their scheme was trashed. A CONSTITUTIONALIST would be nominated to the Supreme Court and if the hag who’d claimed to retire if Trump were elected would actually leave, the Supreme Court would have a massive majority of CONSTITUTIONALISTS for the next 40-50 years.

Now, the same party who’d ridiculed Trump on his comments about the election being rigged, started screaming that the election was rigged. They even advocated having the election repeated. They created mobs that burned and pillaged, stopped traffic, threatened murder, battery and rape of Trump supporters, and became the anarchists that the socialist dream thrives upon. They run like castrated pigs for safe zones and use diaper pins as their national symbol.

This is exactly what happens when political correctness takes over, and participation trophies are awarded to everyone. They can’t conceive how disgusting and subservient they have become. Donald Trump may NOT be the best person for the job, but he’s such a welcome respite from the candy-assed wimps who’ve been running the swamp that it’s refreshing to see. At the very least, Donald Trump derailed the Socialist train and bought us precious time. If he only does half of what he’s promised, we’ll still be legions ahead of where Obama has dragged us. Already countries who held us in contempt are lining up to be found in the favor of America.

So, for you liberal lurkers and you half-assed fence-sitters, kiss off. You had your big hurrah and now your party is over. For you staunch Republicans in office, don’t gloat so much yourselves. You’ve been put on notice by the American people that we’re fed up with ALL YOU BASTARDS, and if you don’t start putting America first, you do so at your own peril. You might want to buy a copy of George McGovern’s autobiography and see how shocking and humbling it can be for a professional politician to have to try to find legitimate work once he falls from grace. This election was pure, unadulterated AMERICAN. Hillary got beaten and AMERICA WON THE ELECTION. You can claim he’s not “your president” all you want, but unless you forfeit your American citizenship, YES HE IS! Go cry a river some place they need water.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS ON

PATRIOTISM

It is not my intention to denigrate Mr. Roof; however there are certain subjects that everyone reading the above article must understand.

# 1 is, Patriotism, (as in “a proud supporter or defender of His/her country and it’s way of life” has been used by the International Investment Banking Cartel to control the emotions of billions of people, to their detriment, and the worlds grave yards PROVE IT!

There is no possible justification for continuous wars between Nations. They only profit the Bankers, politicians and those who build, distribute, and sell munitions and related products. WAR IS A RACKET, and it turns men into killers, destroys families, and worst of all, it promotes a mind set in young men that destroys their compassion for other people, and it begins on television, the public and privet mind control school system, all kinds of media, the military and is relevant in every countries mind set. It has turned humanity into monsters. I’ve been there folks, and killing other people becomes an addiction just like narcotics. The better you are at it, the more you want to continue doing it. It is a method of stroking your self-esteem. In short, war destroys human beings ability to prioritize their emotions and responsibilities to humanity. It justifies being sub-human. It is a tool the Bankers use to totally control the world, and the more we participate, the richer and more powerful they get; until we accept our total loss of humanity and freedom and accept their every command. THAT’S THE COST OF PATRIOTISM!

And it has been going on since the beginning of humanity.

And that’s not the worst part: because our confused minds begin to justify it as a means of getting even, like my dreams of solwy dragging Obuma and the Bankers over a gravel road until there is nothing left but the chain. Are you beginning to understand the horror of having been self hypnotized by your own rage or pursuit of glory? Our mind is our only chance of protecting the things we love, and we cannot afford to let other people decide what we should be because; when we, through ignorance, accept the things we have been taught to accept as normal, self hypnosis transfers the blame to us.

Even though my Lord and my God has said “Thou Shalt Not Kill” I have already changed that into; “I will kill anyone who tries to kill my loved ones or myself”, which is all the proof needed to deny my Lord as being infallible. What have we become if we accept human law over the Lord God almighty? Do you see the conundrum we face? This is the result of following the Bankers design of humanity over Gods. They have made us what we are by manipulating everything in our world, and claim to own us!

They have changed the definition of common words like “person” and “citizen”, and the kind of law we must obey was changed from common law to “international law” and that is only a minuscule amount of things that they have used to control us and steal our freedom to have a lawful Government. They make their own law, and hold us responsible, when we had no idea what they were doing, or how they did it. We were lied to from the cradle and accepted it as normal because it was all we knew, so once again I say “protecting our mind from accepting lies is paramount to recovering our humanity and freedom to govern ourselves”.

There remains no excuse for anyone to follow the status quo when the information is available for us to regain our humanity, our government and our education system. You can begin by reading

“You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback)

May the Lord God Almighty, the Holy Lord of Glory forgive us and help us return to His Rule!

# 2! Now, you might be wondering why Mr. Roof is so upset over the machinations of our elected government. Well first off we did not elect them; the Banking Cartel appointed them for us because they know better than us how to gain complete control over the only commodity that has the power to control our lives. MONEY is the method they have always used and has been proven to be the ultimate weapon against humans. Along with our mind manipulation they use our greed for commodities to control us and all of the governments of the world.

And soon, they are going to solidify and modify the expense of doing that by eliminating our access to any currency but digits in their controlled banks. This effectively bankrupts all of humanity. Then, they will have the power to control everything on earth, and there will be no turning back with their own world military to enforce their control. Face it America, we have been screwed!!!

All of the pleasures of life will then be at the pleasure of the Banking Cartel. Can you comprehend the number of people who will be murdered to enforce this incomprehensible destruction of life on earth, as they solidify their control over everything needed to service the selected and obedient few who remain to serve them? Is your ignorance of their plans so low that this sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory? Well you only think what they have enabled you to think!

All remaining human beings will toe the line in perfect obedience when the Bankers control their food and warmth, where they come and go, and how often. Those of you who only see the good in humanity are in for a lesson you will not forget. Then you will be exterminated. That is the result of not having the intelligence to know “Something is wrong here” and doing the research to find out what it is!

All they had to do to accomplish this, is to do it in increments slow enough to not frighten people, and keep them focused on the remaining pleasures in life. Which by the way, is not all that inspiring if you have some of your mind left. I do not mean to appear to be more intelligent than anyone else but I was and remain aware that something is wrong here, so I looked for the reason. The next step was to try and awaken as many people as I could before the shit hits the fan. And, believe me it will when everyone has no money with any value.

# 3! Now we must confront the divide and conquer method that has helped the Bankers create chaos among us, and who among you is free of prejudices? Who among all of us has not looked down our nose at this or that ethnicity? As hard as I try not to, I would be a liar if I did not admit to being prejudice because it has been a part of humanity from the get go, and the Bankers have used it to completely divide America into a bunch of ignorant squabbling fools.

The media industry has been their most successful weapon in dividing us and many other human infallibilities have been controlled to their advantage. Can we not see the advantage it gives them to hate one another while they escape our wrath? Make no mistake about it, hate is a powerful tool when it is advantageous to them, and keeping us at each others throats is much better that attacking them. The media industry has been the most successful tool in the Bankers toolbox because they own it lock stock and barrel. Only six corporations control what we are feeding our minds by watching and reading their surreptitious lies.

Consider what we could accomplish if we were all pulling in the same direction instead of kicking and scratching each others eyes out; not to mention creating unforgivable wounds in our minds. Who among us is free of this horrible waste of power to reconstruct our country?

So Mr. Roof, don’t be so hard on the sons of bitches who call themselves your elected representatives, as they are only following orders, like any loyal military man is expected to do.

Here is the proof your government is a bunch of murders and if you still believe they came down from the fire, you are just plain stupid! This p.d.f. is far too extensive to convert to word so you must Click the link to view it.

Myself being a prior tenant of WTC1 from 1978 – 1990 strongly recommend this report be shared with all that you know, and if you have a website, download and link at your website also.

I view the report as being:

The clear showing of a masterfully played out Political Illusion Propaganda plan responsible for covering up one of the massive crimes of the century Vs. Science fact and factual reality suppressed for 16-years now by the heads of a multi-Trillion dollar crime syndicate

Copied below also is an article by Mark H. Gaffney, in which he brings forward facts and conclusions per one small group from Israel (several confirmed Israeli Mossad agents) whom appeared to have had advance knowledge of the 911 event and were in place on the Jersey shore 2-miles across the water from the WTC complex to document the event via video..

I think you will find, outside of the smoke and mirrors the syndicated press has been spoon feeding us all over the last 15-years, it informative reading and it will clarify one of the primary motives behind the event that led (with pr-planed design) our country into over a decade of wars of aggression in which have destroyed, looted, and destabilized one country after another in the Middle East.

Sent FYI and Truly Yours,

Walter J. Burien, Jr.

O. Box 2112

Saint Johns, AZ 85936

Tel: (928) 458-5854 Arizona

9/11: The FBI Report and the Dancing Israelis that are Standing Truth on its Ear

by Mark H. Gaffney

On the morning of September 11, 2001 a Jersey City, N.J. housewife named Maria was making coffee in her kitchen when she received a phone call from a neighbor who excitedly told her to look out the window. When Maria looked she was shocked to see a plume of smoke rising from the World Trade Center about a mile away across the Hudson River. Quickly Maria grabbed some binoculars and stepped out onto the balcony of her high-rise apartment, known as the Doric Towers, which afforded an excellent view of lower Manhattan. Maria did not yet know that a commercial airliner had plowed into the north tower of the World Trade Center, but it was obvious that an ugly tragedy was in progress.

As she watched, she noticed three men in the parking lot below who were behaving strangely. They were sitting or kneeling on the roof of a white panel truck and, like her, were watching the stricken World Trade Center. Oddly, however, the three men were celebrating. They were smiling and laughing, giving high-fives, taking photos, and one looked to be filming the World Trade Center as it burned. Their inappropriate behavior made Maria suspicious and, a few minutes later, when the men drove off in the van, she copied down their license plate number. When her husband returned home from jury duty, she discussed the matter with him, then, called the police and reported what she had seen.

At 3:31 p.m., the FBI put out a “be on the lookout” (BOLO) all points bulletin and, about an hour later, East Rutherford police officers Scott DeCarlo and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli identified the white van, then stopped it on Rt. 3, near Giants stadium. The cops approached and instructed the occupants to exit the vehicle, but the driver refused and the officers, now with guns drawn, had to physically remove the occupants (there were now five of them). The men were hand-cuffed, read their rights, and taken into custody.

All of them were between 22-27 years of age. Their names were Sivan Kurzburg, his brother Paul Kurzburg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The driver [Sivan Kurzburg] reportedly told officer DeCarlo, “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” i Another occupant falsely said, “We were on the West Side highway in New York City during the incident.”

A search of the vehicle turned up several passports, cameras, rolls of film, a sock stuffed with $4700 in cash, backpacks, notebooks and, according to the Bergen Record, “maps of the city with certain places highlighted…. It looked like they were hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen.” ii This story in the local newspaper was prescient, because the issue of foreknowledge would preoccupy the subsequent FBI investigation. The question was eventually answered, though as we will learn, not by the FBI.

The five Israelis claimed to be tourists temporarily employed by a local moving company, Urban Moving Systems (UMS), based in Weehawken, N.J. The owner of the business was also an Israeli, 31-year old Dominik Suter whom FBI agents briefly questioned, before Suter fled to Israel with his family. At that point, the FBI obtained a warrant and searched the UMS premises. They found evidence of Suter’s hasty departure, uneaten sandwiches, cell phones and half-full coffee cups, as well as stored furniture and the belongings of numerous customers who had been left hanging. FBI agents seized documents and at least fifteen computers.

The FBI placed the five Israelis in a federal detention center, isolated them from one other, and began to interrogate them closely. The investigation was driven by numerous discrepancies in their accounts, and by the men’s strange behavior in the period before the second plane impact when everyone still assumed that the first crash was simply a tragic accident. Some of the Israelis were given as many as seven lie-detector tests in an effort to determine if they had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. One, Paul Kurzburg, refused for weeks to take a lie-detection test, then agreed to take it, and promptly failed it. iii

During interrogation, the Israelis reportedly explained why they were happy that morning. They said it was because “the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel’s circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel.” iv As we know, Likud-leader Benjamin Netanyahu made a similar comment when asked about 9/11. “It’s very good,” Netanyahu told the press, then back-tracked, “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy for Israel.” v

The FBI investigation took a serious turn when two of the men turned up in a US national intelligence database, indicating they were known Mossad agents. Mossad is the Israeli equivalent of the CIA. Also, two of the men (it is not clear if these were the same two) were found to be in possession of round-trip airline tickets. The two had arrived in the US from Tel Aviv via Athens on June 15, 2001, and were scheduled to return to Israel on September 12, 2001, the day after the attacks. vi Was the suspicious timing of their planned departure just a coincidence?

In March 2002, an un-named high-ranking US intelligence official told The Forward, a venerable New York Jewish newspaper, that the FBI concluded at the end of its investigation that the Israelis arrested in New Jersey had been conducting a Mossad surveillance mission on September 11, and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems, served as a front. vii

ABC News conducted its own probe and reported a similar view on the network’s prime-time show 20/20. viii During a taped interview with co-hosts Barbara Walter and John Miller, the Israeli detainees’ attorney, Steve Gordon, made a belated attempt at damage-control. Gordon said his clients denied the news reports that that they had been celebrating, or rejoicing, or even horsing around, that morning. But Gordon’s attempt to spin the story in a more favorable light remained at odds with the evidence found in the white van, namely, rolls of film plus the film pulled from three cameras, which when developed by the FBI appeared to confirm exactly what Maria first told police. The Israelis had taken portrait shots of one another with the burning World Trade Center in the background, and plainly were in a festive mood. The FBI never found the alleged video camera, however. ix

ABC consultant Vince Cannistraro, who formerly had served as CIA chief of counter-terrorism operations, later told journalist Christopher Ketcham that “the question that most troubled FBI agents in the weeks and months after 9/11 was whether the Israelis had arrived at the site of their ‘celebration’ with foreknowledge of the attack to come.” According to Cannistraro, “From the beginning, the FBI investigation operated on the premise that the Israelis had foreknowledge.” x

The FBI report

Such a conclusion is consistent with the FBI report on the case, or rather, with the small part of it that was made public in 2011. Most of the FBI report, some 1280 pages or more in length, remains classified and will not be released until 2035. But even from the lesser part that has been declassified, it is evident that the FBI uncovered some disturbing material linking the Israelis to 9/11, material that was never reported by the US news media. xi

For instance, the report mentions that the FBI received information from its Miami office that one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers had utilized another Israeli-run moving company, Classic International Movers (CIM), also based in New Jersey. It seems that a number of Israeli-owned moving companies were operating in the New York area. Curiously, CMI’s telephone number turned up in one of the notebooks found in the white van, all of which prompted the FBI to detain and interview four CIM employees. The four were Israelis and had served in the Israeli military; and all four had entered the US from various locations in South America. xii Although the outcome of the expanded investigation cannot be determined from the heavily censored FBI report, the connection to the 19 hijackers must have alarmed US intelligence experts. If Mossad agents were shadowing Arab terrorists in the US, it possibly meant the Israelis had prior actionable intelligence about the 9/11 attacks that they did not share with US officials.

In another case, the FBI interviewed a former Urban Moving Systems employee who said he had quit Urban “due to a high amount of anti-American sentiment present among Urban’s employees.” The former worker stated that, in addition to Israelis, UMS also employed Russians, Hungarians, and other foreign nationals. But the Israelis always spoke Hebrew among themselves and held frequent meetings in the company office, to which “he and the other non-Jewish employees were never invited.” The man said that “an Israeli employee of Urban had once remarked, ‘Give us twenty years and we’ll take over your media and destroy your country’.” I hasten to add, this is straight out of the FBI report. I am not making this up, nor embellishing. xiii

The same individual also offered a glimpse into the moving operation that could explain why UMS owner Dominik Suter fled the country. The former employee called Suter a “crook” and described how he “would have the delivery teams fill up the trucks with empty boxes, because he [Suter] would charge the customers by cubic feet. He [Suter] would also have some employees stay on the trucks when they were weighed so that he could charge more.” xiv If this is true, and Suter was engaging in shady business practices, it might explain why he fled. Suter might have feared exposure and possible prosecution.

The testimony of the plainly disgruntled individual must be treated with skepticism; yet, one of the Israeli detainees (I will refer to him as the “5th Israeli”) corroborated some of what he said. The fifth Israeli told the FBI that most of the foreign nationals employed at UMS lacked the necessary work-visas, which means that Dominik Suter made a practice of hiring illegals, and based on the testimony of his own workers, it’s clear he exploited their illegal status, paying sub-standard wages under the table, while avoiding payroll taxes. Suter definitely had cause for concern. Yet, as the reader is about to learn, his flight was also undoubtedly motivated by a much more serious matter.

In the end, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, the FBI concluded “that the five Israelis most likely did not possess prior knowledge of the WTC events.” xv On November 20, 2001, the detainees were served a deportation order for visa violations, then escorted from a US immigration and naturalization center in Brooklyn to JFK international airport where they were put on a flight to Tel Aviv. Once safely back in Israel, three of the men went on a national television show, and during the interview one, Oded Ellner, told his audience that “Our purpose was to document the event,” xvi which of course implies foreknowledge. Ellner’s public admission reduced the FBI investigation to absurdity. Unfortunately, from there it gets worse, because the rest of the story is almost too terrible to contemplate. Yet, face it we must.

The fifth Israeli

It seems that one of the five Israeli detainees did not know enough to keep his mouth shut, probably because he was not a member of the core Mossad group, hence, was not in the loop. This fifth Israeli was apparently just a guy, a poor shmuck who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. According to the FBI report, the man broke down and sobbed repeatedly under interrogation, not what you would expect of a Mossad operative. The man told the FBI he barely knew the four other Israelis who were in the van with him at the time of the arrest, and did not even know their last names. Evidently, this fifth man was one of two Johnny-come-late-lies who joined the group after the high-fivers left the parking lot below Maria’s apartment. xvii

This odd man out gave the FBI the fullest account of any of the detainees. He described in considerable detail the events of that morning; how he first noticed smoke pouring from the World Trade Center while en route to work; and how he arrived at UMS late, between 9:15 – 9:20 a.m., whereupon, he reported to the box packaging area in the UMS warehouse for some scheduled training. Apparently, the man was still a novice mover. He further explained that around 11 a.m. one of the other Israelis came in and announced that “they are taking down the second building,” at which point everyone in the warehouse hurried up to the roof to watch the mind-boggling spectacle. The fifth Israeli told the FBI that (and I quote) “at the time [he, the fifth man] believed that the authorities had purposely collapsed the building to prevent the additional damage that would be caused by the building tumbling to its side. It was not until later that night when he saw a TV news report in jail that he realized that the planes had caused the buildings’ collapse.” This is verbatim from the FBI report.

Looking back with unblinkered hindsight, it’s clear that the naive fifth Israeli heard it right the first time from the other Israeli who knew the truth: that the World Trade Center was being systematically demolished in plain view of the whole world.

Today, fifteen years after the fact, we know it was a demolition thanks to the independent research of some highly motivated scientists, engineers and truth-tellers, who over the years have gathered an overwhelming amount of evidence, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that explosives were used. xviii The basics have been known since at least 2007, when the physicist Steven E. Jones found explosive residues in samples of World Trade Center dust. xix

Some of the evidence for explosives was actually compiled on the morning of “the attacks.” Indeed, it was being gathered at Hoboken, N.J., on the shore of the Hudson, even as the Israelis celebrated on the roof of the UMS warehouse a mile or more upriver at Weehawken. When Rick Siegel heard about the tragedy unfolding in lower Manhattan, he hustled to the Hoboken waterfront, set up his video camera on a tripod, and began shooting. Over the next two hours, Siegel diligently filmed both collapses, but even more importantly, he captured an audio record of the enormous rumbling explosions that ripped through the towers in the moments before they fell. xx

Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of shocked local residents who were also watching from the Jersey shore that morning must have heard the same enormous explosions, as did many more in lower Manhattan. Yet, not one of these Americans was ever asked to appear before the official 9/11 investigations and describe what he or she saw and heard, that morning.

Siegel’s audio-video tape is almost as shocking on replay as the events of that day. The slightly muffled but nonetheless unmistakable sounds of huge multiple blasts carried quite well for more than two miles across the open water of the Hudson River. Siegel’s audio record is yet more corroborating evidence refuting the fiction that has pervaded the US media ever since: that plane impacts and fires brought down the twin towers. No way, we were deceived. The official story about 9/11 is probably the most monstrous lie ever perpetrated upon the American people.

The Mossad team based in Weehawken not only had, by its own admission, foreknowledge of the “attacks,” the testimony in the FBI’s own report, as I have attempted to show, suggests that the Israelis also knew, that very morning, that the World Trade Center was being demolished with explosives.

Standing truth on its ear

Oded Ellner’s brazen admission that “our purpose was to document the incident” may have played well in Israel, but it raised a number of urgent questions for Americans, questions that still need answers. First and foremost: how did the FBI come to embarrass itself so badly? Indeed, how could the FBI have reached a conclusion 180 degrees from the truth? Especially since its investigation, judging from the portion of the FBI report that is available appears to have been on track, at least initially.

I suspect the answer is rather simple. Although the FBI had all of the necessary resources to do its work, it was hamstrung by the official story and thus, was unable to pursue leads that would have led to the truth. The idea of a demolition was so far out of bounds as to be unthinkable. This no doubt also explains why the FBI declassified the fifth Israeli’s eyewitness account. The FBI censor evidently failed to comprehend the significance of the man’s testimony, pointing to the use of explosives.

But the FBI was also shut down from above. A source at ABC News told journalist Chris Ketcham that “there is a lot of frustration inside the bureau about this case. They feel the higher echelons torpedoed the investigation…. Leads were not fully investigated.” xxi

ABC reported that a settlement was finally reached in the case after “high level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials.” xxii According to former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, “there is no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11. Bear in mind, this was a political issue, not a law enforcement or intelligence issue.” xxiii

The travesty I have just described incriminates then-president G.W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney. We are left to ponder their obvious treachery, and the following incendiary question: how did the Mossad team in New Jersey know in real time that the Twin Towers were being demolished with explosives?

The second updated and expanded edition of Mark H. Gaffney’s 2012 book Black 9/11 will be released later this year. Reach Mark for comment at: markhgaffney@earthlink.net

v – James Bennet, “DAY OF TERROR: THE ISRAELIS; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer”, New York Times, September 12, 2001, posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-israelis-spilled-blood-seen-bond-that-draws-2-nations-closer.html

ix – The matter of the video camera was never resolved. The FBI never found the video-cam, but neither did it find reason to question the reliability of the witness Maria, who in repeated interviews never changed her story. In fact, Maria gave a very detailed description of what she saw. She described the video-cam as a small handheld unit with a liquid crystal display (LCD) screen. She also recalled that one of the men was holding it up to his face, moving the camera slowly from side to side, or, as she put it, “panning the area.” FBI Report, section one.

So we covered the Law of the Sea, both Maritime and Admiralty, and you know now that Maritime Law is also called Commercial Law, Roman Civil (or just “Civil”) Law, Maritime Law, and Law Merchant.

You know that Admiralty is distinguished from Maritime in that Admiralty pertains to military and governmental affairs on the High Seas, while Maritime concerns itself with civilian transport of goods, services, and “persons” on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways. This is the same difference as the difference between the U.S. Navy and the Merchant Marine Service.

All these activities fall under the Law of the Sea, which is a very ancient venue of the law that first arose thousands of years ago and which was based on pagan religious beliefs and ethical principles. The most recent overhaul of Maritime Law —also known as Roman Civil Law — took place in the Second Century BC.

So, no, Dorothy, when you step out into international jurisdiction, you are not in Kansas anymore, and the rules and standards of behavior and the guarantees you are owed on land no longer apply.

Satan, aka, Poseidon, was the original “God of the Sea” known as the “Father of All Lies”, so you can pretty much figure out what his “Law” is like and can now understand why the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demand an “appearance” of Justice, and not the actual thing.

This foreign, pagan, Satanic form of law governs worldwide shipping to this day and its “legal” practices are often “unlawful”. Only corporations can form the maritime or admiralty agreements known as contracts and only corporations can be held accountable for contracts.

So how is it that you, a living man, are being “held to account”?

It’s largely because you have an ACCOUNT—-and you have what is presumed to be a “Legal Name” and a “Signature” written in “Cursive”—- as in “curse of the Sea”.

Normal average land-lubbers have no such things, so when a judge sees an ACCOUNT and a legal name like “JOHN M. DOE” and receives paperwork that is “signed”—- as in American Sign Language— in cursive writing, he has to assume that you are acting as a corporation operating under the legal name “JOHN M. DOE” and that you have an ACCOUNT as a franchise of a federal corporation (a Federal Reserve Bank) and that you have entered into “legal contracts” — that is, Maritime contracts of some kind— and that you are to be “held accountable”.

Now, none of this is true. You have–most likely–never knowingly, willingly, nor under conditions of full disclosure entered into a Maritime contract in your entire life, but the way the rats have set things up, you are automatically presumed to be operating in this venal, foreign, pagan system and to be voluntarily subjecting yourself to the Law of the Sea—-either Maritime or Admiralty.

And you can scream and shout until the cows come home about your rights and guarantees owed to you on the land, but none of that counts at sea.

You have been press-ganged.

Shanghaied.

“Illegally transported”.

“Kidnapped”.

Your identity has been stolen along with your money and your credit cards.

And the so-called “beauty” of the scheme is that nobody told you or your Mother or anyone that had a legitimate interest in you what was being done behind the scenes. The entire “transport” took place under color of law, silently, when you were only a few weeks old, and nobody was the wiser except the Bar Association crooks and the feckless politicians responsible for this outrage.

Their excuse? Oh, it was all for the war effort. It’s always a war effort in which you are called upon to defend them from their well-earned enemies and wind up fighting the people that are at the very least your natural allies.

The perpetrators have given you the “gift” of a Legal Name and an ACCOUNT as a presumptive “ward” of their state. Wasn’t that nice of them, to claim ownership of your name and steal your identity and misrepresent your political status, so as to take you into the foreign jurisdiction of the sea and “legally” rob and rape you?

So they press-ganged you into their service and claimed that you were a “citizen” and subject to the international law of the sea. And you let them do this to you, because you were deliberately dumbed down, misinformed, and left as prey to these vile monsters when you were just a baby in your cradle.

Well, as it turns out, your ancestors “reserved” all “non-delegated powers” in international jurisdiction to the states and the people (Article X of the actual Constitution) and since you were born as one of the “people” owed the land jurisdiction of this nation, you can kick the ever-loving Bejeezus out of these vermin using those reserved powers.

For starters, you own and control the Federal Postal Districts, which are land-based and which underlie and occupy the same space as the “United States Districts” —- only this is your international jurisdiction on the land as opposed to their international jurisdiction on the sea.

You can now discern the difference between a “Federal Marshal” and a “United States Marshal”.

The men and women responsible for this criminal scheme and treason against you stopped hiring Federal Marshals a few years back, because, after all, there are so few people left who are still claiming to be American state nationals— that is, knowledgeably claiming their birthright as Virginians, Californians, Coloradans, and so on. And because it doesn’t suit their agenda against you to hire men and women to fill those peace officer slots, they’ve just neglected to fund them.

Ah, but as the source of all money and all credit on this planet, you can fund those positions. You can fill those positions with volunteers, too. And you can actually serve as a Federal Marshal yourself, if you have the time and the expertise and desire to make a difference in this situation and put an end to the crimes being carried out against Americans.

You can assemble your jural assemblies at the county and state levels throughout this once-great nation and you can make it great again, to borrow a tag line from Donald Trump. You can start by recognizing the venal crimes that have been committed and you can start by objecting to any claim that you are any form of “citizen”.

Most of all, you can realize that the “federal government” is a foreign entity with respect to you and your states of the union, and that it has committed crimes against you and your states under the guise of serving you.

You can “surrender” the PERSON they created for you a few days after your birth — the legal name they substituted for your proper English name—

and “assign” its assets to your benefit and the benefit of your country.

You don’t have to act as a “citizen” of anything and you don’t have to live under the venal Law of the Sea.

Does anyone really know the mindset of President-Elect Donald Trump? January 21, 2017 the neutral pendulum will begin to swing right or left. Citizens should be keenly aware of nuances, meaningless statements; political positions that regularly come forth from his mouth, as well as the super large issues he will be instantly confronted with. The importance is simply that the new president will hold more collective power in all the political arenas on that date than any man in the history of the world. Which way and how far will the pendulum swing?

The American government, on a perpetual basis, needs soldiers and lots of them to continue their unconstitutional, preemptive murdering and destructive psychotic pursuits.

President Elect Donald J. Trump, who I voted for with certain caveats, has reiterated multiple times that:

S. must greatly strengthen nuclear capabilities

Retrofit the existing S. military

Furthermore: Increase the numbers & scope of the S. military top down. These statements (positions) and their implementation have the capacity to destroy mankind.

Question: why the necessity for the above? Who is today’s U.S. enemy du jour? Not one foreign national government has shown an inclination for war since 1945.

The current U.S. military is the largest and best equipped in the history of the world, yet President Elect Trump wants to rebuild & build on those numbers. At least 5 countries have a nuclear capability that could destroy the globe 10X over in minutes, namely the U.S., U.K., China, Israel, & Russia. There are others. Of the 5, who presents the greatest threat to precipitate a nuclear Armageddon—in my mind, the U.S. and/or Israel.

Should President Elect Trump proceed on the psychotic misadventures for global destruction i.e. arms race, as opposed to pursuing a vigorous global peace initiative, laissez faire capitalism, and as one of the Founders stated…”no foreign entanglements”, we shall pay dearly in blood & treasure. There is an excellent chance that civilization could be wiped off the face of the earth, e.g. the U.S. forcing China & Russia into a nuclear global conflict, now occurring—U.S. military along Russian borders & naval forces in the South China Sea. These two nations will not be bullied.

Bush I & II engaged this nation into 15 years of continual murdering and destruction, aided by Barack Obama with no end in sight. The RNC (Republican National Committee) and its sitting Senators & Representatives are warmongers of the highest order and no doubt inherited their DNA from the butcher of butchers, President Abraham Lincoln, e.g. Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsay Graham, and in AR. neophyte war-activist Sen. Tom Cotton, & indolent Sen. John Boozman who acts only on command from the RNC to pull the levers for war, otherwise his 15 year legislative presence has been a blank slate & a disgrace.

If President Elect Trump is successful in the macro enlargement and retrofitting of the U.S. military, what are his plans for utilizing this behemoth? The U.S. currently has a military presence in 130 countries! Again, I ask why? None of these countries have shown one iota of interest in any manner to engage the U.S. militarily, while at the same time the U.S. has meddled, destroyed, & murdered millions of innocent citizens around the globe, e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Ukraine, Turkey, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela, & Russia (posting NATO troops on the borders of countries contiguous with Russia—e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey, a U.S. naval armada in the South China Sea, and a recent deployment of tanks in Eastern Germany. ) Who is the aggressor?

I ask again, what does Mr. Trump plan to do with his proposal to metastasize the U.S. military? Are the troops going to languish in their barracks sitting on their bunks polishing their brass and rearranging their foot lockers? Certainly not, it is a formula for global destruction/hegemony, the only logical conclusion with which one can arrive, with another massive buildup of troops & material. Armies are assembled to destroy countries, kill, and torture, remove individual freedoms & institute multiple methods of captivity ending in slavery. The U.S. military is not assembled for peaceful engagements. (Accompanied by a national debt of $20 TRILLION & GROWING)

To the point. Paul Wolfowitz, dual Israeli/U.S. citizen, heavily involved in Bush II’s criminal adventures & author of the Wolfowitz Doctrine—“WE SHALL HAVE NO RIVALS”, and using the doctrine simply means, as he states, “ETERNAL WAR FOR ETERNAL PEACE” resulting in an insane equation for the pursuit of U.S. global dominance with the obvious need for massive numbers of young Americans, i.e. cannon fodder, to satisfy the dreams & goals of elitists, bankers, military/industrial/surveillance complex, and of course in the mid-east to do the fighting & funding for Israeli Jews.

All Americans during the last 4 decades have been recipients of daily fuselages of indoctrination, propagandizing, conditioning, and directives, to institute emotional behaviors that is producing an overweening emotional admiration for war and the military, and at the same time citizens hardly realizing our republic has been embroiled in a continuing 15 year war that engages in super criminal acts.

The above methods are being used at every public event (free & paid) at public institutions (public schools, universities & entertainment venues) & always with an accompanying display of force: enormous flags, cannons, fireworks, military presence, flyovers, music—highly successful maudlin spectacles which produce the desired enlistments, none of which should be a part of private citizen’s entertainment & academic interests, nor should citizens be subjected to a bellicose environment at any time.

Therefore: who will you say is violating the cannons of civility? Put another way, who do you believe deserves the title of “global enemy”?

The whole of America, mainly due to ignorance, is betraying the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers, resulting in the U.S. becoming a belligerent historical wasteland.

Painfully said, the courageous U.S. fighting force is bringing our republic down by creating chaos & fear at home & abroad, not “KEEPING US SAFE” as the general officers, politicians & media bloviate daily. The U.S. has become the global enemy and unless these young people realize they are subsidizing their own demise in unconstitutional, preemptive wars and the criminal activities of American governments we will never arise from the filth and vermin to which this & past American governments have brought us.

The courageous American military are not heroes, they are tools used by elitists who foolhardily pursue their hegemonic ambitions. Some solutions for the neutralization of our despotic federal government are akin to simple syrup—simple.

Redeploy all American troops back to the confines of the USA, use the redeployed troops to lockdown all our national borders—land, sea, & air; use a substantial number of the remaining redeployed to build a wall contiguous with Mexico. Discharge all military personnel who do not provide active rolls in positively serving our nation; remove all illegal foreign nationals from roles in our military. Deport all illegals and those residing here on expired visas. The redeployment will also provide for a sleek, effective fighting force and relieve U.S. taxpayers from paying billions of dollars on foolish military excursions. If the numbers remaining are sufficiently great they should be directed to rebuilding our infrastructure. And finally, there should be instituted a 5 year moratorium on all immigration, giving our nation a chance to acculturate/assimilate the hundreds of ethnic groups who reside here legally.

Citizens, you do understand that politicians & bureaucrats are not going to resolve on their own the multiple crises we taxpayers are enduring—they created them all for their own enrichment. The coup de gras to complete the above tenants for saving our Constitutional Republic; all incumbents must be given the boot promptly, removing any chance of reenacting conscription, among other repugnant things.

Speaking of heroes, 3 individuals stand out, Edward Snowden fled to Russia, Bradley Manning federal prison, & Julian Assange house arrest Ecuadorian Embassy. They have given their all to alert/educate Americans to the magnitude of the criminal cabal located in DC—the federal government. President Elect Donald Trump, in my view, should pardon these 3 men and award with appropriate medals of honor—they may just have saved our nation.

There are numerous writers on the internet who display skill and intelligence that make the newspaper journalist look like high-school dropouts, but none I have read has put into print a more comprehensible, intelligent and common sense solution than what you have just read. Thank you Joe! The only thing lacking is a comprehensive plan to ignite the brains of hundreds of millions of people in America TO SUPPORT IT. Americans absolutely must stop wasting their time on frivolous entertainment, and gain the courage to abandon the social stigma against participation in political conversations. If your friends and family abandon you for having the courage to speak up, consider it an advantage and keep on trying to get people involved. You have lost nothing when idiots denounce you.WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!

Comments Off on https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/the-breakup-of-the-united-states-is-inevitable/

If you want to know why it is so important that WhoWhatWhy exists, and why it needs to grow into a major news organization capable of influencing the public discourse, read the following. It makes it manifestly clear just how compromised the media — right, left and center — has been, and continues to be. The influencers are not just the more visible ones, such as owners and advertisers. They include the vast and largely unaccountable US intelligence apparatus, whose agendas are often unclear and not entirely in the public interest.

The CIA has a long history of “spooking the news,” dating back to its earliest days when legendary spymaster Allen Dulles and his top staff drank and dined regularly with the press elite of New York and Washington—including the top executives and editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and CBS—and the agency boasted hundreds of US and foreign journalists as paid and unpaid assets.

In 1977, after this systematic media manipulation was publicly exposed by congressional investigations, the CIA created an Office of Public Affairs that was tasked with guiding press coverage of intelligence matters in a more transparent fashion. The agency insists that it no longer maintains a stable of friendly American journalists, and that its efforts to influence the press are much more above board.

But, in truth, the US intelligence empire’s efforts to manufacture the truth and mold public opinion are more vast and varied than ever before.

During a recent interview at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, a pair of CIA public affairs officers confirmed they provide journalists with frequent background briefings, typically about foreign hot spots. Their mission, they stated, is simply to guide news coverage of national security issues in a truthful direction, while also protecting personnel and operations from public disclosure.

“Our role at the Office of Public Affairs is not to manipulate reporters,” one CIA spokesperson told me. “If they come to us with questions about nonclassified information that makes us look bad, we just give our typical comment.”

The CIA has a longstanding tradition of providing briefings to favored journalists, he acknowledged. “In the 1980s, Bob Woodward came out here a lot of times to get briefed,” the press officer said, referring to the Washington Post reporter of Watergate fame. But the agency is happy to speak with any journalist seeking its perspective on global crises. “Now, we get a lot of calls about the crisis in the Middle East. Reporters want a basic understanding of what’s happening.”

This all sounds reassuring and harmless. But the reality is, beneath the new professionalism that supposedly characterizes today’s relationship between the CIA and the press lurks a vast underworld of covert pressure, seduction, and deception aimed at controlling media coverage of the most vital national security issues.

Since 9/11, the national security establishment has ballooned to encompass thousands of government agencies and private contractors. Although the CIA retains a central role in this sprawling labyrinth, it by no means is the only covert institution that seeks to impose Washington’s view of the world on the public at large, by working the levers of what Cold War–era CIA wizard Frank Wisner called the agency’s “mighty Wurlitzer,” on which he could play any propaganda tune.

After WikiLeaks burst onto the scene and whistle-blowers Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden rocked the national security world, it seemed like a new day of transparency might be dawning. But instead of emboldening the media to more aggressively cover the vital issues of war and peace, and surveillance and freedom, national security reporters were subjected to tightening controls and increased intimidation.

For every editor who defies the national security establishment, or maverick blogger who embarrasses the CIA or National Security Agency (NSA), there are numerous cases of editorial compliance. The notion that, in the age of Snowden, the American press has become a sharp-eyed watchdog of the growing security state is far-fetched. In truth, the Washington press corps continues to largely function as a mouthpiece for the government when it comes to covering the endless war on terror.

This deference to the national security state has a long history. The collaboration between the CIA and the press began with the birth of the agency in 1947. The Vietnam War and Watergate scandal briefly strained this compact. But, with the Reagan counterrevolution in the 1980s, the media came under powerful new pressures to conform to the official line. Even as the CIA waged a secret and illegal war in Nicaragua, and US-backed military regimes in Central America massacred innocent civilians, reporters who went too far in exposing these crimes and atrocities were subjected to intimidation and smear campaigns by Reagan officials and their allies in the corporate media. Independent-minded correspondents were reassigned; careers were destroyed.

In the early 1990s, during the Persian Gulf War, the US news media all too willingly embedded itself within the US military, temporarily attaching itself as a communications branch of the government and demonstrating that the Vietnam-era days of critical war reporting were over.

U.S. Army Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf (left), U.S. Central Command commander in chief, inspects troops while visiting a base camp during Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia, April 5, 1991.Photo credit: US Department of Defense

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the shift became permanent when the press—led by the New York Times and Washington Post—turned itself into a propaganda tool of the US government, spreading Bush administration lies about Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction program, and paving the way for America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, whose disastrous consequences continue to haunt us.

This book explores how the US media got “spooked” by the CIA and other powerful agencies of the national security state. Spooked features firsthand accounts from prominent national security reporters as well as former CIA officers, who speak for the first time about how the spy agency tries to spin press coverage of everything from its controversial drone assassination program to the agency’s deliberate disinformation campaign about Iraqi WMDs.

Spooked also sheds new light on the CIA’s increasingly cozy relationship with Hollywood. The agency has established a very active spin machine in the heart of the entertainment capital, which works strenuously to make sure the cloak and dagger world is presented in heroic terms. Since the mid-1990s, but especially after 9/11, American screenwriters, directors, and producers have traded positive portrayal of the spy profession in film or television projects for special access and favors at CIA headquarters.

According to former CIA officers whose exploits have been depicted onscreen, as well as ex-spooks who currently consult with Hollywood, the spy agency allows filming inside its headquarters and often extends red-carpet treatment to directors and stars of CIA-friendly projects like 24, Argo, Homeland, and Zero Dark Thirty, with the latter screen drama particularly exemplifying the agency’s deep grip on popular culture.

Although Hollywood’s depiction of the CIA has shifted back and forth between the light and dark over the decades, with the 1970s being a low point for the agency’s portrayal on screen (The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor), more recent films and TV programs demonstrate that the entertainment industry has become much more enthralled by the intelligence community.

In a democratic society, there is always a struggle between the machinery of national security and press freedom, and the public’s right to know is usually the loser. When our national security czars become, in effect, our media gatekeepers, we lose one of the essential cornerstones of a true democracy—an informed citizenry. Distracted by the manufactured flow of information produced by a news media that has fallen under the spell of its own official sources, and beguiled by militaristic and patriotic Hollywood myth-making, the American public is largely benighted when it comes to understanding the wars and covert violence carried out in our name. Spooked will explain exactly how this process occurs and what happens to journalists who dare to break the rules.

The increasingly sophisticated ability of intelligence agencies to manipulate reality has enormous consequences for our democracy. After fifteen years of never-ending press accounts about terror threats and Islamic bogeymen, a paranoid reality reinforced by even more breathless Hollywood thrillers, the American people have become all too willing to give up their freedoms and acquiesce to a state of permanent war.

James Risen of the New York Times is one of the few mainstream reporters who has been willing to challenge the enormous power of the national security state, much to his own personal and professional peril. He has learned firsthand that this empire of secrecy always wants to “control the press and limit what you write.” “If you go beyond those limits, you will be punished,” says Risen. “We have built a national security state worth billions of dollars that is trampling our civil liberties and we are living with a fear of threats that are not there.”

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

One thing you can ALWAYS count on is TYRANNY always starts in the Banking Cartel, and progresses to governments and those who it controls. You folks who are still staring into a TV screen every day are one inch short of being sane. The TV is a distribution system for surreptitious tyranny.

After three years of increasingly toxic politics, the ruling oligarchy won and “we the people” lost. The FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s emails ended with a whimper, rather than a bang. FBI director James Comey declared Clinton’s use of a private email server to be careless rather than criminal. Bernie Sanders sparked a movement only to turn into a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election. Donald Trump won the White House while the American people lost any hope of ending the corporate elite’s grip on the government.

More people died at the hands of the police. Shootings of unarmed citizens (especially African-Americans) by police claimed more lives than previously estimated, reinforcing concerns about police misconduct and the use of excessive force. Police in Baton Rouge shot Alton Sterling. Police in St. Paul shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop. Ohio police shot 13-year-old Tyre King after the boy pulls out a BB gun. Wisconsin was locked down after protests erupt over a police shooting of a fleeing man. Oklahoma police shot and killed Terence Crutcher during a traffic stop while the man’s hands were raised in the air. North Carolina police killed Keith Lamont Scott, spurring two nights of violent protests. San Diego police killed Alfred Olango after he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket. Los Angeles police shot Carnell Snell Jr. after he fled a vehicle with a paper license plate.

We lost some bright stars this year. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia’s death left the court deadlocked and his successor up for grabs. Joining the ranks of the notable deceased were Muhammad Ali, David Bowie, Fidel Castro, Leonard Cohen, Carrie Fisher, John Glenn, Merle Haggard, Harper Lee, George Michael, Prince, Nancy Reagan, Janet Reno, Elie Wiesel, and Gene Wilder.

Diseases claimed more lives. The deadly Zika virus spread outwards from Latin America and into the U.S.

The rich got richer. The Panama Papers leak pulled back the curtain on schemes by the wealthy to hide their funds in shell companies.

Free speech was dealt one knock-out punch after another. First Amendment activities were pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship varied widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

Environmental concerns were downplayed in favor of corporate interests. Flint, Michigan’s contaminated water was declared a state and federal emergency, while thousands protested the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline and its impact on water sources.

Technology rendered Americans vulnerable to threats from government spies, police, hackers and power failures. The Justice Department battled Apple in court over access to its customers’ locked, encrypted iPhones. Microsoft sued the U.S. government over its access to customers’ emails and files without their knowledge. Yahoo confirmed that over half a billion user accounts had been hacked. Police departments across the country continued to use Stingray devices to collect cellphone data in real time, often without a warrant. A six-hour system shutdown resulted in hundreds of Delta flights being cancelled and thousands of people stranded.

The nanny state went into overdrive. Philadelphia gave the green light to a tax on sugary drinks. The FDA issued guidelines to urge food manufacturers and chain restaurants to reduce salt use.

The government waged a war on cash. Not content to swindle, cheat, scam, and generally defraud Americans by way of wasteful pork barrel legislation, asset forfeiture schemes, and costly stimulus packages, the government and its corporate partners in crime came up with a new scheme to not only scam taxpayers out of what’s left of their paychecks but also make us foot the bill. The government’s war on cash is a concerted campaign to do away with large bills such as $20s, $50s, $100s and shift consumers towards a digital mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient.

The Deep State reared its ugly head. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government is the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our so-called representatives. It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics. These are the key players that drive the shadow government. They are the hidden face of the American police state that has continued past Election Day.

Now that’s not to say that 2016 didn’t have its high points, as well, but it’s awfully hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel right now.

Frequently, I receive emails from people urging me to leave the country before the “hammer falls.” However, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there is nowhere in the world to escape from the injustice of tyrants, bullies and petty dictators. As Ronald Reagan recognized back in 1964, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

Let’s not take the mistakes of 2016 into a new year with us. The election is over. The oligarchs remain in power. The police state is marching forward, more powerful than ever. All signs point to business as usual. The game continues to be rigged.

The lesson for those of us in the American police state is simply this: if there is to be any hope for freedom in 2017, it rests with “we the people” engaging in local, grassroots activism that transforms our communities and our government from the ground up.

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

All you need to know on how to transform America is available at http://www.annavonreitz.com/ and in her book: You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

This week, Muslims killed nine and wounded 48 in a truck attack in Berlin, Germany. Another Muslim executed a Russian diplomat with eight shots to his back at point blank range. German authorities reported they thwarted two planned attacks in the past week.

For the past four decades, Muslims in all Western countries continue their prime directive dictated by the Quran: “Convert or kill all non-believers.”

Their methods: 9/11 mass murder attacks. Also, lone wolf attacks. They infiltrate governments with their operatives, i.e., Barack Obama and his 10 Muslim aides in the White House, hijra or “seeding” host countries with Muslim immigrants to eventually install Sharia Law. They employ beheadings, be-handings and honor killings that terrify women worldwide. Muslims kill gays, and kill anyone who remains an infidel or non-believer. Worse, you never know which Muslim will kill at what time or place.

When confronted with reality, Muslims kill the truth, they kill the truth messenger and they kill anyone who disagrees with them.

Will it take a Paris, France slaughter once a week to help civilized leaders to deport all Muslims? Will it take a Brussels, Belgium airport bombing once a month to convince leaders to rid their countries of Muslims? How about a Nice, France barbaric attack at weekly intervals to finally help all Western countries to come to the simple conclusion: Muslims and Islam—Incompatible with 21st century humanity.

Notice 1.5 billion “moderate” Muslims do nothing to stop the terror. They don’t speak up. They do not condemn. They don’t lead their religion out of the Dark Ages. Muslim mosques all over Europe store weapons while imams instigate terror attacks. Worse, they spew incredible hate toward all other religions.

In the USA, Muslims commit barbaric acts regularly. Whether it’s honor killings of women or female genital mutilation or arranged marriages or threats to gays—the US State Department and FBI counter terrorism agencies remain on full alert to stop Muslims from terrorizing America 24/7.

But they can never stop lone wolf Muslim killers. That’s why we face another Orlando, Florida slaughter or a San Bernardino or more Ohio State University stabbings.

That’s why Muslim Barack Obama jumped the Syrian migrant level into the USA by 339 percent in the month of December. He wants as many violent Muslims to enter America before his time in the power ends. (Source: Fox News, December 21, 2016, Hannity)

Muslims don’t make any bones about it: they expect to conquer America or die trying. Muhammad gave them 72 virgins as a sexual reward in heaven for their jihad.

“When the sacred months have passed, then kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them. Besiege them. Lie in wait for them in each and every ambush but if they repent, and perform the prayers, and give zacat then leave their way free.” Quran Chapter 9:5

In 2002, John Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper, lay “in wait” for various infidels and killed 17 of them. Since then, from Boston to San Bernardino—Muslims carried out killing sprees.

“When Allah revealed to the angels, ‘Truly I am with you. So, keep firm those who have believed. I will strike terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved. So, strike them at the necks and cut off their fingers.’” 8:12

Islam’s dictates become painfully real for individuals who suffer death or injury whether the Boston Marathon bombers or White Cloud, Minnesota mall knife-wielding Muslim or the Fort Hood killer Major Hassan pretending to be a U.S. Army officer.

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one superior to the other and because they spend to support them from their means. Therefore, righteous women are obedient and they guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard. And, as to those women from whom you fear disobedience, give them a warning, send them to separate beds, and beat them.” 4:34

Why aren’t feminists in all countries demonstrating to stop all Muslim immigration? How do first world women accept Muslim men who force their women into black bags and stone them to death for being raped? How about the 20,000 honor killings annually in Muslim dominated countries? Anyone got a problem with that ritual?

How do you defend from such barbarism in the 21st century?

Since we already suffer 3.3 million Muslims within our country, we must defend against them harshly and effectively.

Solution: we Americans demand all Muslim immigration stopped. We as a people must deport any Muslim or Muslim organization that advocates Sharia Law. Start with C.A.I.R. and the Islamic Society of America, Muslim Brotherhood and others. We must monitor all mosques with mandated video coverage. We must deport anyone who espouses individual or collective violence toward our citizens. Ban the Burka or hijab that destroys a woman’s right to her individuality. Deport or jail any Muslim imam who speaks or organizes anyone toward violence. Do not allow Muslims into the military, period.

Mandate that any Muslim that commits female genital mutilation, an honor killing or arranged marriage to be jailed and deported after time served.

In other words, make America so harsh against this violent, barbaric and incendiary religion—that they repatriate themselves back into their own countries—where they can practice their barbarism without consequences.

Historian Adnre Servier said, “Islam was not a torch, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use by a barbarous people, it was, and it remains, incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Whatever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse toward progress and checked the evolution of society.”

Final solution: Islam mandates a violent political-economic-religious system diametrically opposed to a free republic and in violation of our U.S. Constitution. Demand the prohibition of Islam in America. Enforce the McCarren-Walter Act of 1952.

Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: “HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS”; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.

To Frost’s list of undesirables I would add all liberals and RINOS, plus all those who support Corporate Governance. America was supposed to be a Republic of Free States and Free People. Not corporate slaves. Corporations have only one objective, and that is to make profits for their stock-holders, so do not complain if you are ignorant of the theft of your freedom. The information is available to all who are intelligent enough to recognize they need to do some research. Presently you do not own anything of value. Woe to all you who believe you have an obligation to support taxation on your possessions. You have been brain washed by the education and media industries. Not even your body belongs to you, or your children!

This article was written by Michael Krieger and originally published at Liberty Blitzkrieg

While I’m not a Dodd-Frank fan, it’s not because it was too harsh, but because it didn’t really do much of anything. It was the typical neoliberal bait and switch, designed to look tough for public consumption, while merely making tweaks around the edges of a financial system that requires systemic, paradigm level change.

Trump’s support of repealing Dodd-Frank tells you all you need to know. A Trump Presidency will see Wall Street felons who should be in prison, running as wild and free as ever.

He will be the same thing to distressed working class whites that Obama was to the black community. A fake messiah and a shyster.

The fact that Steve Mnuchin was a Goldman Sachs partner is the least of my concerns when it comes to the man. Indeed, if someone wanted to create a playing card deck of sleazy Wall Street financial crisis opportunists, it’d be hard not to include Steve Mnuchin.

What exactly am I talking about? Specifically, I’m referring to the collapse of IndyMac (renamed One West), and the generous helping of government welfare Mnuchin and his partners received upon purchasing the failed banking institution. This is a financial crisis saga that is unknown to most, despite having received some extensive coverage over the past year. One of the best articles on the topic was written by David Dayen in his piece, Donald Trump’s Finance Chair Is the Anti-Populist From Hell. Here are a few excerpts:

Donald Trump’s first major staff selection since securing the Republican nomination, national finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, co-founded and manages the hedge fund Dune Capital. Not only did he make partner at Goldman Sachs, so did his father in the 1960s. With over 30 years of experience at the top levels of finance, Mnuchin was present for every recent major banking innovation, including those that brought the country to the brink of economic collapse.

Mnuchin’s presence in the campaign reveals how the qualities Trump loyalists projected on their hero don’t measure up to the truth. They have venerated him throughout the Republican primary for rejecting the dirty business of pay-to-play politics, and for populist vows to protect the ordinary worker. But in selecting Mnuchin, not only has Trump submitted to the realities of presidential campaign finance; he’s chosen one of the most notorious bankers in America to carry it out.

When I heard Mnuchin’s name last week, I immediately remembered the front lawn of his mansion. Back in 2011, local housing activists and the Occupy movement in Los Angeles camped out on that lawn to save the home of Rose Mary Gudiel, a La Puente, California, resident who faced eviction after being just two weeks late on one mortgage payment. The activists threatened to move all of Gudiel’s furniture into Mnuchin’s $26 million Bel Air estate if the eviction wasn’t stopped. Twenty police officers and a helicopter met the protesters.

Why was Mnuchin’s front lawn the focal point for the protest? Because years after forming Dune Capital in 2004, Mnuchin’s hedge fund purchased the failed lender IndyMac, one of America’s largest home lenders and a leading distributor of Alt-A mortgages, a subprime hybrid which did not require borrowers to accurately state their incomes. After IndyMac failed, Dune led the investment group that purchased it from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 2009, renaming it OneWest Bank. Mnuchin became OneWest’s principal owner and chairman.

OneWest accomplished these foreclosures through fraud. Erica Johnson-Seck, a vice president of foreclosure and bankruptcy for OneWest, explained in a July 2009 deposition that she “robo-signed” 6,000 foreclosure-related documents per week, spending just 30 seconds on each sworn affidavit that attested to the veracity of all relevant information in the case. Johnson-Seck admitted to not reading the documents before signing them, to not knowing how the records were generated, and to not signing in the presence of a notary, all of which made the affidavits she signed false evidence in court.

The OneWest subsidiary Financial Freedom executed 39 percent of all foreclosures on reverse mortgages between 2009 and 2015, despite servicing only 17 percent of the market, according to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) obtained by the California Reinvestment Coalition. OneWest disclosed in its most recent annual report that it’s under investigation for this disproportionate share of “widow foreclosures” by HUD’s Inspector General. The victims include 103 year-old Myrtle Lewis of North Texas, who OneWest put into foreclosure after her insurance coverage lapsed; Karen Hunziker, who got a foreclosure notice from OneWest ten days after her husband passed away in 2014; and a host of others.

Trump’s loyal fans aren’t likely to scrutinize Mnuchin’s record, but they should. You can measure political candidates in part by who they associate with. The foreclosure history in Mnuchin’s past reflects an extreme mentality of profit at all costs, and hardly a viewpoint of standing up for the little guy. Trump as populist was always something of a pose, covering for a deep nationalism and antipathy to immigrants. The Mnuchin pick just brings that into sharper relief.

Trump’s main money-chaser has profited off the suffering of ordinary Americans for years. There’s no reason to believe Trump will offer a better deal to the working class.

The Mnuchin group paid FDIC $1.5 billion for the bank, far less than the value of IndyMac’s assets. The FDIC was so desperate to unload IndyMac that Mnuchin and his colleagues were able to obtain, as part of the purchase deal, a so-called “shared loss” agreement from the FDIC which reimbursed these billionaires for much of their costs for foreclosing on people unlucky enough to have mortgages from IndyMac.

Within a year, the group that the Los Angeles Times called a “billionaires’ club of private financiers” had paid themselves dividends of $1.57 billion. In other words, the FDIC took much of the risk by subsidizing the bank’s troubled assets, while Mnuchin and his colleagues pocketed the profits.

The California Reinvestment Coalition—a nonprofit organization that pushes banks to reinvest in low income communities and communities of color—determined from Freedom of Information Requests that the FDIC had already paid out over $1 billion to reimburse OneWest for the cost of over 35,000 foreclosures in California and an unknown number in other states. CRC also estimated that the FDIC will eventually pay out another $1.4 billion for the costs associated with even more foreclosures in the future.

OneWest opened its doors with 33 branches and roughly $16 billion in assets. Mnuchin engineered its growth by purchasing two other failed institutions—First Federal Bank of California and La Jolla Bank—getting the FDIC to agree again to additional “loss share” arrangements so that the owners had little to lose. After these purchases, OneWest had 73 retail branches and $26 billion in assets. It also serviced billions of dollars of mortgage loans on the behalf of third parties, such as Fannie Mae. In multiple surveys of California housing counselors, OneWest was ranked among the worst mortgage servicers in the state.

Nice deal if you can get it. Oh, and there’s also this.

In July 2014, Mnuchin arranged to sell OneWest to the CIT Group for $3.4-billion—more than double what they paid for the bank five years earlier. CIT Group, a holding company that owned a Salt Lake City-based on-line bank, wanted to buy OneWest for its low-cost deposits and its network of Southern California retail branches. The consolidated bank now has assets of about $60 billion, ranking it among the nation’s 40 largest banks.

Under the terms of the acquisition, CIT agreed to pay Mnuchin $4.5 million a year for three years as the bank’s vice-chairman. Because he relinquished that post in March 31 of this year, Mnuchin was given a $10.9 million severance package, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In CIT Group’s most recent annual report, the bank disclosed that it had received multiple subpoenas in 2015 from the Office of Inspector General at the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) related to the servicing of reverse mortgages by Financial Freedom.

CRC’s Gonzalez said that, in light of Mnuchin’s new role in the Trump campaign, “HUD should release more information about its investigation of OneWest’s subsidiary.”

Believe it or not, it gets even more interesting from here. For example, you may be interested to know who one of Mnuchin’s partners was in the IndyMac deal. Yep, you guessed it: George Soros.

In 2002, Mr. Mnuchin left Goldman and later was hired to run a credit fund set up by billionaire George Soros.

In 2004, Mr. Mnuchin and two former Goldman colleagues founded hedge fund Dune Capital Management LP with financial backing from Mr. Soros. Dune soon expanded into the entertainment business, striking up a film-financing deal with a unit of 21st Century Fox. Among the films Dune financed was “Avatar,” one of the all-time box office hits.

In 2008, IndyMac Bank in Pasadena, Calif., collapsed in one of the largest bank failures in U.S. history. Mr. Mnuchin led a group of investors, including funds run by Mr. Soros and other hedge-fund and private-equity titans, who bought it from the government for about $1.5 billion. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation agreed to cover a portion of any future loan losses, a lucrative arrangement for Mr. Mnuchin and his partners. Regulators who negotiated with Mr. Mnuchin found him to be the kind of detail-oriented person who would “know the cost of every pencil,” according to a person familiar with their thinking.

Considering many diehard Trump supporters consider Soros to be the spawn of Satan, I’m curious to see the intellectual contortions necessary to justify this relationship.

Moving along, the sad thing is none of this is surprising to me. From day one, I felt that Trump was way too cozy with Wall Street, and wouldn’t do a thing to rein in financial sector abuses. I warned about it on several occasions. See:

In light of this appointment, I want to revisit something I wrote in a recent post:

To conclude, this article is primarily written for all my readers who are either Trump supporters, or who reluctantly voted for him. My message to you is that we need to hold this man’s feet to the fire. The election is over, and you got your desired outcome. Now is not the time to be a cheerleader. Now is not the time to behave exactly like Obama zombies did after he became an obvious betrayal. What allowed Obama to do all the bad things he did, was the fact that his supporters made endless excuses for him. Don’t make excuses for Trump. If you do, your life will get a lot worse and this country will decay far more into an authoritarian oligarchy than it already has. It is up to you to make sure he doesn’t become the Wall Street puppet I always feared he would be.

If you give cover to Trump to appoint swamp creatures to his cabinet, you have no right to criticize Obama for having done the same. Let’s grow up and start rallying around ideas, not cheerleading political figures.

Comments Off on There Will Be Swamp: “Trump Cabinet Picks Confirm Creatures Of Washington Still Rule The Earth”

For years, alternative economic analysts have been warning that the “miraculous” rise in U.S. stock markets has been the symptom of wider central bank intervention and that this will result in dire future consequences. We have heard endless lies and rationalizations as to why this could not be so, and why the U.S. “recovery” is real. At the beginning of 2016, the former head of the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve crushed all the skeptics and vindicated our position in an interview with CNBC where he stated:

“What the Fed did — and I was part of that group — is we front-loaded a tremendous market rally, starting in 2009.It’s sort of what I call the “reverse Whimpy factor” — give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow. I’m not surprised that almost every index you can look at … was down significantly.” [Referring to the results in the stock market after the Fed raised rates in December.]

Fisher continued his warning (though his predictions in my view are wildly conservative or deliberately muted):

“…I was warning my colleagues, “Don’t go wobbly if we have a 10-20 percent correction at some point. … Everybody you talk to … has been warning that these markets are heavily priced.”

Here is the issue — stocks are a mostly meaningless factor when considering the economic health of a nation. Equities are a casino based on nothing but the luck of the draw when it comes to news headlines, central banker statements and algorithmic computers. Today, as Fischer openly admitted, stocks are a purely manipulated indicator representing nothing but the amount of stimulus central banks are willing to pour into them through various channels.

Even with the incredible monetary support pooled together by international financiers, returns on equities investments continue to remain mostly flat. It would seem that the propping up of indexes like the Dow has been only for the sake of keeping up appearances. For many people, revenue is barely being generated.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans do not care to educate themselves on the finer points of finance. Their only relation to the health of the economy is their daily glance at the Dow. If it is green, or at all time highs, they assume that all is well, even if their gut is telling them something is not quite right.

The elites that stand at the helm of the Federal Reserve understand this dynamic very well. They are not stupid. They know that the whole of the global economy could be in a shambles but as long as stocks remain positive the masses will continue to ignore reality until the flames of destabilization are at their very doorsteps.

With this fact in mind one might think that the Fed would consider it in their best interest to keep stimulus measures operating indefinitely; but that is not what they are doing.

In fact, the Fed along with other central banks like the ECB has been slowly peeling back pillars of support from markets that have been in place since 2008-2009 and leaving the system open to a crisis event that should have been dealt with years ago. I examined this process of deliberate destabilization in my article ‘The Global Economic Reset Has Begun.’

In that piece I outlined the three major pillars holding up the U.S. market system and certain parts of our economy and how they were being systematically removed. The first pillar was the use of bailouts and quantitative easing measures. These were diminished through the implementation of the Fed “taper,” which I predicted would happen three months prior that year.

The second pillar was the use of near zero interest rates, which allowed numerous banks and corporations to access low-cost and no-cost overnight loans from the Fed. These companies then used these loans in large part to support a never-ending program of stock buybacks, which reduced the stock pool and artificially boosted the values of the remaining stocks. I predicted in August of 2015 that the Fed would hike interest rates and that this would be the beginning of the end for the stock buyback bonanza. The Fed hiked rates in December of that year.

This process of removing backdoor manipulation through low interest rates should be our main concern right now. Early in 2016 I believed that the Fed would reach a position in which it would finally unleash a series of rate hikes. I did not think they would be so blatant as to wait until right after the U.S. presidential election to do so. I was wrong.

As I have been arguing for most of the past year, the election of Donald Trump was inevitable and would precede the triggering of the final stage of our ongoing economic crisis. I came to realize that the Fed’s timing of their latest rate hike is highly strategic. Not only does it set the stage for a series of hikes that will crush U.S. stock markets this coming year and finally shock the public out of their fiscal stupor, but it also maneuvers the crisis right into the lap of Donald Trump and the conservative movements that support him.

Beyond this, it perpetuates an increasing Left/Right division in America. Think about it — during a fiscal crisis under Trump, tiggered by accumulating Fed rate hikes, liberals will immediately set upon Trump as the culprit, while conservatives will immediately defend Trump as a victim of Federal Reserve meddling.

The Federal Reserve and the mainstream media are already composing the narrative by stating that Trump’s potential economic policies and a widening budget deficit would REQUIRE higher rates at a faster pace in order to be accommodated.

I have heard arguments from some that this tactic would simply not work. That people would “never buy” a narrative in which Trump and conservatives are blamed for a market collapse that was at least eight years in the making. I have to say, this view is incredibly naive.

I understand why people would want to embrace the notion that the public is as savvy as the liberty movement when looking at economic events, but this simply isn’t reality. A large portion of the U.S. population identifies with the “Left” end of the political spectrum. We have already seen how they react in the face of a Trump election win. They are predisposed to believe that Trump is responsible for a market crash regardless of the facts. Not to mention, much of the rest of the world is economically ignorant and will likely jump on the anti-conservative bandwagon during a crisis as well.

But the real master stroke of this strategy on the part of the elites is that it creates the perfect platform for the destruction of the U.S. dollar’s world reserve status — the third and final pillar I mentioned months ago that is supporting our economic system.

Imagine that the Fed’s rate hike frenzy sparks an open feud between the central bank and Trump? Some people might say “Good! Shut the bastards down!” However, this is exactly what the elites want. With the Fed “at odds” with the president of the U.S., faith in the U.S. dollar will plummet. Its world reserve status will be destroyed. And instead of being blamed on central banks, the majority of people around the world will claim it was the fault of Trump.

With a historically sufficient excuse for the end of dollar dominance in hand, the elites can move forward with their great global reset, which includes the replacement of the dollar with the IMF’s special drawing rights as the go-to reserve currency mechanism. The SDR basket is an essential bridge in the formation of a single global monetary authority and a true single global currency.

I believe that the Fed will not only continue hiking interest rates throughout 2017, but that some of these rate hikes may be LARGER than many people expect (50 basis points or more). I believe this will be designed to foster extreme tensions between the executive branch and the central bank.

A few months ago I would have said that Trump may or “may not” be aware of this dynamic and the potential that he is a scapegoat. Now that I have seen Trump’s cabinet picks which include neo-con and Goldman Sachs alumni, I have little doubt that he is fully cognizant of the plan. I will be writing more on the issue of Trump as a “Trojan horse” in my next article. In the meantime I would point out that all of the elements of psychological support for stock markets will also disappear in the face of a Trump verses establishment narrative.

All those leftist media outlets cherry picking economic stats and telling half truths to support the recovery lie now have no reason to continue cheerleading for the economy. I expect that propaganda rags like Reuters and Bloomberg will quickly change their tune with Trump in the Oval Office and begin a consistent chorus of negative financial data. Not only will the Fed remove all support from the system, but the mainstream media will be pounding day traders with the kind of “doom and gloom” headlines that they have been criticizing us for over the years.

Make no mistake, the election of Trump may have some in the liberty movement ready to pack up their preps and forget about any national crisis in their lifetimes, but the truth is, vigilance is needed now more than ever. I said it before the election and I’ll say it today — do not get comfortable; the times are about to get even more interesting.

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.

The global financial system continues to groan under the strain of the accumulated weight of trillions of dollars worth of debt and derivatives, which have built up to even more fantastic levels than those that precipitated the near collapse in 2008, thanks to the policy of solving liquidity problems near-term by creating even more debt and derivatives, Quantitative Easing being the most obvious example. However, while the majority consider the situation to be hopeless, there is actually “light at the end of the tunnel”.

If only a way could be found to freely tap the funds of savers at will, by imposing duties or taxes on bank accounts, with the additional option to appropriate savers’ funds on occasion as required, then the systemic liquidity problems will be solved. Banks need never fear solvency problems again and they can simply fall back on the account holder’s funds to meet any obligations. There are in fact already names for these restorative operations, they are called “bails-ins” and NIRP (Negative Interest Rate Policy).

Unfortunately, any immediate attempt to implement bail-ins and NIRP on a large scale will backfire because, faced with being charged significant sums for the privilege of keeping their money in the bank, savers will simply withdraw their funds and keep them as cash at home, or maybe even invest in Precious Metals. It is, therefore, imperative that these escape routes are blocked off.

We have already seen an interesting “trial balloon” in recent years with respect to bails-ins. This was the celebrated Cyprus bail-in. When Cyprus banks were about to go belly-up a couple of years ago, they saved themselves by raiding customers’ accounts, which is more palatably described as a bail-in. The reaction of global savers to this action by the Cyprus banks was one of horror and revulsion and they made it plain that they weren’t going to stand idly by and watch banks plunder their funds – they would withdraw them as cash if any such threat should appear over the horizon. This reaction set the great minds of the banking community to work on how to stop savers withdrawing their funds in the face of these threats. The solution was and is simple – abolish cash! Thus we have seen a production of the 500 Euro note in the European Union stopped so that it gradually fades into oblivion and in the US Larry Summers has proposed the abolition of the $100 bill, which accounts for most of the money in circulation. The idea is to implement the policy for a global cashless society in stages – if it is done all at once the public will revolt. They need to be trained to go cashless and this will take time. By starting with high denomination notes you actually remove most of the currency in circulation at a stroke, but the masses can still buy cigarettes and candy bars at street corner shops with small denomination notes. The excuse given for the removal of the notes is that it impedes organized crime and money laundering etc, which is, of course, a convenient smokescreen.

With plans for a cashless society already well advanced, it was time for another trial balloon. India was selected. Anxious to demonstrate his credentials as a card-carrying member of the New World Order, and oblivious to the effects of the operation on the hapless citizenry of his country, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi went ahead with the withdrawal of two key banknotes. This caused chaos across the country, especially in rural areas where many don’t even have bank accounts, and citizens often had to travel long distances to get to banks to change these banknotes, only to find that the banks had in many cases run out of smaller denomination notes. Despite the economic dislocation and suffering experienced by the masses including some deaths, the experiment was deemed a success by the elites, as they had gotten away with it, with the cowed and impotent citizenry accepting it as their fate – what they should have done is rioted until the measures were withdrawn. Globally, the plan, therefore, is to keep chipping away at it until the cashless society is universally accepted, the only cash likely to remain being small denomination notes and coins suitable for paying street vendors and bus fares etc.

The arrival of the cashless society will not only mean that banks will be able to avail themselves of citizens funds as and when they please, it will also mean that the banks, and by extension, the government, will know all your financial business, what you do and when. Tax evasion will be impossible, and eventually, you will not be able to do business with companies that are not approved of by the government.

With the escape route into cash set to be blocked off, that leaves Precious Metals, gold, and silver, gold as a store of value and silver more for everyday transactions. Gold bugs and others, especially survivalists, and many wealthy investors see this as THE way to escape the rapacious grasp of the banks and the government and are busy squirreling away fortunes into overseas vaults etc. However, it is unfortunate that if you can think of this, so can they, so can the banks and the government, and they have plans for you and your gold hoard. Remember, their power is absolute, no-one dare stands up to them and they can and will do what they like, changing the law as required to suit their purposes. They are much more powerful than President Roosevelt, who in the 1930’s, in an act of naked piracy, seized the gold of US citizens, and furthermore their modern powers of surveillance and tracking are much more sophisticated than anything back then. Thus we can expect governments to declare the holding of gold (and silver) to be illegal and to demand forfeiture to the government in exchange for nominal compensation. Vendors of gold bars will be closed down and mints will not sell retail gold. Unlike the 1930’s this be a be a coordinated global campaign, a kind of witch hunt if you will, and there will be no corner of the world that is safe, just as they finished off private banking in Switzerland. Those buying gold and stashing it in various pseudo-anonymous remote foreign depositories will be in for a nasty shock as these vaults are arbitrarily raided and plundered, with the local and international law being changed as required to facilitate this. Nothing will stand in the way of a system that will not permit alternatives.

We will end on a positive note. No-one really wants to see a complete systemic collapse, which is what will happen if banks don’t avail themselves of savers funds quite soon, least of all the controlling elites at the top of the pyramid who live lives of scarcely imaginable opulence and luxury and wish to continue doing so. Such a collapse would lead to bank accounts being frozen, and a breakdown of the distribution system leading to anarchy and hand-to-hand fighting in the streets for essentials like food and gasoline. Should we not, therefore, be grateful to our illustrious masters who have ingeniously thought of a way out of the current impasse, by availing themselves of your funds as required? Is it not a small price to pay to go cashless and forego your privacy and independence, and forfeit your gold and silver on demand?

It is tempting to blame others for all this, especially those in control of the system, but don’t forget that for decades you voted for people who routinely lied before elections, and told you what you wanted to hear, that you could have it all right now and to hell with the future – well, that future has now arrived.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Ok, so the media, including we who are attempting to warn everyone is painting a scary picture of an inconceivable catastrophe. NOW WHAT? Do we shit or go blind when there is no way to buy products to sustain our lives? May I suggest that IF we lose all ways to barter because we do not have the cash on hand to buy some of everything in sight, like a truck load of food, gas, guns, ammo, generators, shovels, hammers and nails, and a host of other things we will need; that can only mean one thing! We’re shit out of luck, and pretty pissed off at the government. So, while supplies are still available, buy yourself a reloading press and all the assorted tools, primers, powder, case’s, and bullets needed to make your own ammo, because if things are that bad, ammo is going to be the next currency. Need I remind you to buy weapons also, because every swinging dick in America is going to want what you have and not have anything to buy it with. Your elected representatives will be underground and protected by the military, so forget about shooting them. Your friends and family may or may not be trustworthy also! Now don’t you feel better knowing what to do when the crap hits the fan? THE END!

There are some very somber, pragmatic articles circulating as of late that present a true snapshot of the difficulties the U.S. faces after eight years of Obama. One of these articles is a well-written, thought-provoking piece by Susan Duclos of All News Pipeline, entitled We are Facing the Most Important Battle of All at the Most Dangerous Moment in History. The piece shows what we’re up against and cautions all of us not to rely on the “magic fix” of Trump’s victory to side rail our preparations and vigilance. Here is an excerpt from that excellent article:

“We at ANP are noting a lot of optimism from investors with stocks soaring, to economic confidence reaching new highs, to small business owners, to household spending and even prepping has hit a “multi-year low,” all the articles I am reading are crediting the election of Donald Trump as reason for all this optimism, but as much as I hate to rain on everyone’s parade… now is the most dangerous time in history, not a time to assume just because one man was elected, all the wrongs will be made right, the failing economy will automatically just magically fix itself.”

Susan deserves special thanks, as well as Stefan Stanford; their coverage of developments has been spot-on and unwavering in their attempts to present objective and factual reporting, while warning readers akin to modern Paul Reveres that the battle is not over by any means. In reality, it is not even close to being over. I recommend reading the article’s section toward the beginning under “THE ECONOMY IS COLLAPSING” paragraph introduction for statistics on where we stand economically at this moment in time.

Not since the election of Ronald Reagan has the mood on the right shifted in such a positive direction so suddenly. But now that everyone is feeling so good about things, very few people still seem interested in prepping for hard times ahead. In fact, it is like a nuclear bomb went off in the prepping community.

As the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, I am in contact with a lot of people that serve the prepping community. And I can tell you that sales of emergency food and supplies have been crashing since Donald Trump’s surprise election victory. Firms that help people relocate outside of the United States have seen business really dry up, and I know of one high profile individual that has actually decided to move back to the country after Trump’s victory.

It is almost as if the apocalypse has been canceled and the future history of the U.S. has been rewritten with a much happier ending. Personally, I am quite alarmed that so many people are suddenly letting their guard down, but it is difficult to convince people to be vigilant when things seem to be going so well.

Mike’s sentiments are completely accurate and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The people who have been orchestrating the collapses of national governments (Ukraine, Libya, and Egypt, for example) and have been funding the “fundamental transformations” of other areas, (such as Syria and Yemen) have not halted their agendas. And, why would they? There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake that have already been invested in the planned collapse of all the nations of the world and the absorption into one global governance split (as written in earlier articles) into three areas to promote “homogeneity” and management along lines of ethnic, cultural, and genotypical similarities.

It appears as if the U.S. may take a little bit longer than expected, now. “May” is still the deciding word. Remember: the 9-11 attack was what enabled Bush Jr. to propel the U.S. toward a police state. The John Warner Defense Act was signed in 2006, and the Patriot Act did not originate under Obama, but under Bush. You can see the “Overton Window” principle and the resultant paradigm shifts as you observe each successive election and term of office…the “back and forth” from (supposedly) Conservative to Liberal administrations. Reagan (8 years) and Bush Sr. (4 years, when the decline began), followed by Clinton (8 years) and then Bush Jr. (8 years) and then Obama (8 years) …and here’s Trump for at least 4 years.

The Republican administrations gave a few “small pushes” toward globalism, while the Democrats gave “huge pushes” that moved the line of what the public could tolerate further along the path… alternatingly scaling back with the Republican administration that followed.

The globalists need the illusion of the two-party system to enable a “reprieve” in the minds of the people with the rise of a Bush or a Trump…but the reprieve is merely an illusion.

If these Marxist traitors forced their agenda on the people all at once, there would have been a revolution in its inception. They alternate: destroy the society and the culture to the max under a Democrat administration, and then “scale back” a bit under a Republican administration while still nipping away at the edges with an “Act” here, or a “piece of legislation” there.

The proof to this pudding is that Trump will not completely clean house and redo the existing political, economic, and social order when he takes office. Already he has reneged on campaign pledges to repeal Obamacare and build a complete physical barrier between Mexico and the U.S. He is not going to deport the illegal aliens. He is going to emplace several people in his cabinet who are known to be either in the pockets of the corporations (such as Mnuchin), or have stances that diametrically oppose his own campaign pledges (such as his selection for White House Chief of Staff who supports amnesty for illegal aliens).

It may take them a little longer, but Trump will not be able to undo the current course toward the collapse of the United States and the relinquishing of national sovereignty in favor of global governance. He may be (wittingly or unwittingly) helping it along. I believe the former will be the case. Remember Bush Jr.’s departure from the White House? He gave Obama a manila file folder, marked “From 43 to 44,” in reference to their sequential order as presidents. Wonder what was in it, don’t you?

Wonder what Obama will be handing “Number 45” before (and if) he departs? There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that there is an agenda that Trump will follow that is larger than his own. The global manipulators behind the scenes have handed the American people their “champion” and a slight reprieve to avoid a revolution that would have been far from bloodless. We’re still in a mess overall, and Trump will either knuckle under to their demands in the manner of the aforementioned pattern of their choosing, or they’ll remove him from office. Meanwhile it is important not to lose focus, to stay aware, and continue to prepare for the eventual collapse, regardless of what the majority does or doesn’t do in denial of the true situation.

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne). Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape). He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

Don’t forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Comments Off on Trump Can’t Stop It: “The People Who Have Been Orchestrating The Collapse Have Not Halted Their Agendas”

“Jesus is too much for us. The church’s later treatment of the gospels is one long effort to rescue Jesus from ‘extremism.’”—author Gary Wills, What Jesus Meant

Jesus was good. He was caring. He had powerful, profound things to say—things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. He went around helping the poor. And when confronted by those in authority, he did not shy away from speaking truth to power.

Jesus was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state.

But what if Jesus, the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet, had been born 2,000 years later? How would Jesus’ life have been different had he be born and raised in the American police state?

Consider the following if you will.

The Christmas narrative of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.

The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable, where Mary gave birth to a baby boy. That boy, Jesus, would grow up to undermine the political and religious establishment of his day and was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.

However, had Jesus been born in the year 2016…

Rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000.

Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.

Had Jesus been born in a hospital, his blood and DNA would have been taken without his parents’ knowledge or consent and entered into a government biobank. While most states require newborn screening, a growing number are holding onto that genetic material long-term for research, analysis and purposes yet to be disclosed.

Then again, had his parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they would have been turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.

From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.

Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.

Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.

From the moment Jesus made contact with an “extremist” such as John the Baptist, he would have been flagged for surveillance because of his association with a prominent activist, peaceful or otherwise. Since 9/11, the FBI has actively carried out surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations on a broad range of activist groups, from animal rights groups to poverty relief, anti-war groups and other such “extremist” organizations.

Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.

Rather than being permitted to live as an itinerant preacher, Jesus might have found himself threatened with arrest for daring to live off the grid or sleeping outside. In fact, the number of cities that have resorted to criminalizing homelessness by enacting bans on camping, sleeping in vehicles, loitering and begging in public has doubled.

Viewed by the government as a dissident and potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.

Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.

Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.

Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.

Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. Currently, 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.

Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.

Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.

Charged with treason and labeled a domestic terrorist, Jesus might have been sentenced to a life-term in a private prison where he would have been forced to provide slave labor for corporations or put to death by way of the electric chair or a lethal mixture of drugs.

Either way, whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state. Indeed, as I show in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what Jesus and other activists suffered in their day is happening to those who choose to speak truth to power today.

Thus, we are faced with a choice: remain silent in the face of evil or speak out against it. As Nobel Prize-winning author Albert Camus proclaimed:

Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children. And if you don’t help us, who else in the world can help us do this?

ABOUT JOHN WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Click here to read more of John Whitehead’s commentaries

Comments Off on The Radical Jesus: How Would the Baby in a Manger Fare in the American Police State?

WHAT REAL PATRIOT’S DO

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." -Thomas Paine

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.” FL. Hamer